AI Art Generator From Image

AI Art Generator From Image — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing

  Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing (DLAA) is a form of spatial anti-aliasing developed by Nvidia. DLAA depends on and requires Tensor Cores available in Nvidia RTX cards. DLAA is similar to Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) in its anti-aliasing method, with one important differentiation being that the goal of DLSS is to increase performance at the cost of image quality, whereas the main priority of DLAA is improving image quality at the cost of performance (irrelevant of resolution upscaling or downscaling). DLAA is similar to temporal anti-aliasing (TAA) in that they are both spatial anti-aliasing solutions relying on past frame data. Compared to TAA, DLAA is substantially better when it comes to shimmering, flickering, and handling small meshes like wires. == Technical overview == DLAA collects game rendering data including raw low-resolution input, motion vectors, depth buffers, and exposure information. This information feeds into a convolutional neural network that processes the image to reduce aliasing while preserving fine detail. The neural network architecture employs an auto-encoder design trained on high-quality reference images. The training dataset includes diverse scenarios focusing on challenging cases like sub-pixel details, high-contrast edges, and transparent surfaces. The network then processes frames in real-time. Unlike traditional anti-aliasing solutions that rely on manually written heuristics, such as TAA, DLAA uses its neural network to preserve fine details while eliminating unwanted visual artifacts. == History == DLAA was initially called and marketed by Nvidia as DLSS 2x. The first game that added support for DLAA was The Elder Scrolls Online, which implemented the feature in 2021. By June 2022, DLAA was only available in six games. This number rose to 17 by February 2023. In June 2023, TechPowerUp reported that "DLAA is seeing sluggish adoption among game developers", and that Nvidia was working on adding DLAA to the quality presets of DLSS to boost adoption. By December 2023, DLAA was supported in 41 games. In early 2025, an update for the Nvidia App added a driver-based DLSS override feature that enables users to activate DLAA even in games that do not support it natively. == Differences between TAA and DLAA == TAA is used in many modern video games and game engines; however, all previous implementations have used some form of manually written heuristics to prevent temporal artifacts such as ghosting and flickering. One example of this is neighborhood clamping which forcefully prevents samples collected in previous frames from deviating too much compared to nearby pixels in newer frames. This helps to identify and fix many temporal artifacts, but deliberately removing fine details in this way is analogous to applying a blur filter, and thus the final image can appear blurry when using this method. DLAA uses an auto-encoder convolutional neural network trained to identify and fix temporal artifacts, instead of manually programmed heuristics as mentioned above. Because of this, DLAA can generally resolve detail better than other TAA and TAAU implementations, while also removing most temporal artifacts. == Differences between DLSS and DLAA == While DLSS handles upscaling with a focus on performance, DLAA handles anti-aliasing with a focus on visual quality. DLAA runs at the given screen resolution with no upscaling or downscaling functionality provided by DLAA. DLSS and DLAA share the same AI-driven anti-aliasing method. As such, DLAA functions like DLSS without the upscaling part. Both are made by Nvidia and require Tensor Cores. However, DLSS and DLAA cannot be enabled at the same time, only one can be selected depending on whether performance or image quality is prioritized. == Reception == TechPowerUp found that "[c]ompared to TAA and DLSS, DLAA is clearly producing the best image quality, especially at lower resolutions", arguing that, while "DLSS was already doing a better job than TAA at reconstructing small objects", "DLAA does an even better job". In a Cyberpunk 2077 performance test, IGN stated that "DLAA provided somewhat similar results [FPS wise] to the normal raster mode in most cases but got significant performance boost with the help of frame generation", a feature not available when using native resolution. Rock Paper Shotgun noted that, while DLAA is "not a completely perfect form of anti-aliasing, as the occasional jaggies are present", it "looks a lot sharper overall [than TAA], and especially in motion." According to PC World, "DLAA offers very good anti-aliasing without losing visual information — alternatives like TAA tend to struggle during motion-filled scenes, where DLAA doesn’t. Furthermore, DLAA’s loss of performance is lower than with conventional anti-aliasing methods."

  Read more →
• 

  Representer theorem

  For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span ⁡ { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin ⁡ { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span ⁡ { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr

  Read more →
• 

  Facial recognition system

  A facial recognition system is a technology potentially capable of matching a human face from a digital image or a video frame against a database of faces. Such a system is typically employed to authenticate users through ID verification services, and works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image. Development on similar systems began in the 1960s as a form of computer application. Since their inception, facial recognition systems have seen wider uses in recent times on smartphones and in other forms of technology, such as robotics. Because computerized facial recognition involves the measurement of a human's physiological characteristics, facial recognition systems are categorized as biometrics. Although the accuracy of facial recognition systems as a biometric technology is lower than iris recognition, fingerprint image acquisition, palm recognition or voice recognition, it is widely adopted due to its contactless process. Facial recognition systems have been deployed in advanced human–computer interaction, video surveillance, law enforcement, passenger screening, decisions on employment and housing, and automatic indexing of images. Facial recognition systems are employed throughout the world today by governments and private companies. Their effectiveness varies, and some systems have previously been scrapped because of their ineffectiveness. The use of facial recognition systems has also raised controversy, with claims that the systems violate citizens' privacy, commonly make incorrect identifications, encourage gender norms and racial profiling, and do not protect important biometric data. The appearance of synthetic media such as deepfakes has also raised concerns about its security. These claims have led to the ban of facial recognition systems in several cities in the United States. Growing societal concerns led social networking company Meta Platforms to shut down its Facebook facial recognition system in 2021, deleting the face-scan data of more than one billion users. The change represented one of the largest shifts in facial recognition usage in the technology's history. IBM also stopped offering facial recognition technology due to similar concerns. == History of facial recognition technology == Automated facial recognition was pioneered in the 1960s by Woody Bledsoe, Helen Chan Wolf, and Charles Bisson, whose work focused on teaching computers to recognize human faces. Their early facial recognition project was dubbed "man-machine" because a human first needed to establish the coordinates of facial features in a photograph before they could be used by a computer for recognition. Using a graphics tablet, a human would pinpoint facial features coordinates, such as the pupil centers, the inside and outside corners of eyes, and the widows peak in the hairline. The coordinates were used to calculate 20 individual distances, including the width of the mouth and of the eyes. A human could process about 40 pictures an hour, building a database of these computed distances. A computer would then automatically compare the distances for each photograph, calculate the difference between the distances, and return the closed records as a possible match. In 1970, Takeo Kanade publicly demonstrated a face-matching system that located anatomical features such as the chin and calculated the distance ratio between facial features without human intervention. Later tests revealed that the system could not always reliably identify facial features. Nonetheless, interest in the subject grew and in 1977 Kanade published the first detailed book on facial recognition technology. In 1993, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) established the face recognition technology program FERET to develop "automatic face recognition capabilities" that could be employed in a productive real life environment "to assist security, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duties." Face recognition systems that had been trialled in research labs were evaluated. The FERET tests found that while the performance of existing automated facial recognition systems varied, a handful of existing methods could viably be used to recognize faces in still images taken in a controlled environment. The FERET tests spawned three US companies that sold automated facial recognition systems. Vision Corporation and Miros Inc were founded in 1994, by researchers who used the results of the FERET tests as a selling point. Viisage Technology was established by an identification card defense contractor in 1996 to commercially exploit the rights to the facial recognition algorithm developed by Alex Pentland at MIT. Following the 1993 FERET face-recognition vendor test, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in West Virginia and New Mexico became the first DMV offices to use automated facial recognition systems to prevent people from obtaining multiple driving licenses using different names. Driver's licenses in the United States were at that point a commonly accepted form of photo identification. DMV offices across the United States were undergoing a technological upgrade and were in the process of establishing databases of digital ID photographs. This enabled DMV offices to deploy the facial recognition systems on the market to search photographs for new driving licenses against the existing DMV database. DMV offices became one of the first major markets for automated facial recognition technology and introduced US citizens to facial recognition as a standard method of identification. The increase of the US prison population in the 1990s prompted U.S. states to established connected and automated identification systems that incorporated digital biometric databases, in some instances this included facial recognition. In 1999, Minnesota incorporated the facial recognition system FaceIT by Visionics into a mug shot booking system that allowed police, judges and court officers to track criminals across the state. Until the 1990s, facial recognition systems were developed primarily by using photographic portraits of human faces. Research on face recognition to reliably locate a face in an image that contains other objects gained traction in the early 1990s with the principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA method of face detection is also known as Eigenface and was developed by Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland. Turk and Pentland combined the conceptual approach of the Karhunen–Loève theorem and factor analysis, to develop a linear model. Eigenfaces are determined based on global and orthogonal features in human faces. A human face is calculated as a weighted combination of a number of Eigenfaces. Because few Eigenfaces were used to encode human faces of a given population, Turk and Pentland's PCA face detection method greatly reduced the amount of data that had to be processed to detect a face. Pentland in 1994 defined Eigenface features, including eigen eyes, eigen mouths and eigen noses, to advance the use of PCA in facial recognition. In 1997, the PCA Eigenface method of face recognition was improved upon using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to produce Fisherfaces. LDA Fisherfaces became dominantly used in PCA feature based face recognition. While Eigenfaces were also used for face reconstruction. In these approaches no global structure of the face is calculated which links the facial features or parts. Purely feature based approaches to facial recognition were overtaken in the late 1990s by the Bochum system, which used Gabor filter to record the face features and computed a grid of the face structure to link the features. Christoph von der Malsburg and his research team at the University of Bochum developed Elastic Bunch Graph Matching in the mid-1990s to extract a face out of an image using skin segmentation. By 1997, the face detection method developed by Malsburg outperformed most other facial detection systems on the market. The so-called "Bochum system" of face detection was sold commercially on the market as ZN-Face to operators of airports and other busy locations. The software was "robust enough to make identifications from less-than-perfect face views. It can also often see through such impediments to identification as mustaches, beards, changed hairstyles and glasses—even sunglasses". Real-time face detection in video footage became possible in 2001 with the Viola–Jones object detection framework for faces. Paul Viola and Michael Jones combined their face detection method with the Haar-like feature approach to object recognition in digital images to launch AdaBoost, the first real-time frontal-view face detector. By 2015, the Viola–Jones algorithm had been implemented using small low power detectors on handheld devices and embedded systems. Therefore, the Viola–Jones algorithm has not only broadened the practical application of face recognition systems but

  Read more →
• 

  Randomized weighted majority algorithm

  The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an algorithm in machine learning theory for aggregating expert predictions to a series of decision problems. It is a simple and effective method based on weighted voting which improves on the mistake bound of the deterministic weighted majority algorithm. In fact, in the limit, its prediction rate can be arbitrarily close to that of the best-predicting expert. == Example == Imagine that every morning before the stock market opens, we get a prediction from each of our "experts" about whether the stock market will go up or down. Our goal is to somehow combine this set of predictions into a single prediction that we then use to make a buy or sell decision for the day. The principal challenge is that we do not know which experts will give better or worse predictions. The RWMA gives us a way to do this combination such that our prediction record will be nearly as good as that of the single expert which, in hindsight, gave the most accurate predictions. == Motivation == In machine learning, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a deterministic meta-learning algorithm for aggregating expert predictions. In pseudocode, the WMA is as follows: initialize all experts to weight 1 for each round: add each expert's weight to the option they predicted predict the option with the largest weighted sum multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} Suppose there are n {\displaystyle n} experts and the best expert makes m {\displaystyle m} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) makes at most 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ n + m ) {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}n+m)} mistakes. This bound is highly problematic in the case of highly error-prone experts. Suppose, for example, the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time; that is, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds using n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} mistakes. As this is a known limitation of the weighted majority algorithm, various strategies have been explored in order to improve the dependence on m {\displaystyle m} . In particular, we can do better by introducing randomization. Drawing inspiration from the Multiplicative Weights Update Method algorithm, we will probabilistically make predictions based on how the experts have performed in the past. Similarly to the WMA, every time an expert makes a wrong prediction, we will decrement their weight. Mirroring the MWUM, we will then use the weights to make a probability distribution over the actions and draw our action from this distribution (instead of deterministically picking the majority vote as the WMA does). == Randomized weighted majority algorithm (RWMA) == The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an attempt to improve the dependence of the mistake bound of the WMA on m {\displaystyle m} . Instead of predicting based on majority vote, the weights, are used as probabilities for choosing the experts in each round and are updated over time (hence the name randomized weighted majority). Precisely, if w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} is the weight of expert i {\displaystyle i} , let W = ∑ i w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i}w_{i}} . We will follow expert i {\displaystyle i} with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} . This results in the following algorithm: initialize all experts to weight 1. for each round: add all experts' weights together to obtain the total weight W {\displaystyle W} choose expert i {\displaystyle i} randomly with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} predict as the chosen expert predicts multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by β {\displaystyle \beta } The goal is to bound the worst-case expected number of mistakes, assuming that the adversary has to select one of the answers as correct before we make our coin toss. This is a reasonable assumption in, for instance, the stock market example provided above: the variance of a stock price should not depend on the opinions of experts that influence private buy or sell decisions, so we can treat the price change as if it was decided before the experts gave their recommendations for the day. The randomized algorithm is better in the worst case than the deterministic algorithm (weighted majority algorithm): in the latter, the worst case was when the weights were split 50/50. But in the randomized version, since the weights are used as probabilities, there would still be a 50/50 chance of getting it right. In addition, generalizing to multiplying the weights of the incorrect experts by β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} instead of strictly 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} allows us to trade off between dependence on m {\displaystyle m} and log 2 ⁡ n {\displaystyle \log _{2}n} . This trade-off will be quantified in the analysis section. == Analysis == Let W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} denote the total weight of all experts at round t {\displaystyle t} . Also let F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} denote the fraction of weight placed on experts which predict the wrong answer at round t {\displaystyle t} . Finally, let N {\displaystyle N} be the total number of rounds in the process. By definition, F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} is the probability that the algorithm makes a mistake on round t {\displaystyle t} . It follows from the linearity of expectation that if M {\displaystyle M} denotes the total number of mistakes made during the entire process, E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} . After round t {\displaystyle t} , the total weight is decreased by ( 1 − β ) F t W t {\displaystyle \ (1-\beta )F_{t}W_{t}} , since all weights corresponding to a wrong answer are multiplied by β < 1 {\displaystyle \ \beta <1} . It then follows that W t + 1 = W t ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) {\displaystyle W_{t+1}=W_{t}(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})} . By telescoping, since W 1 = n {\displaystyle W_{1}=n} , it follows that the total weight after the process concludes is On the other hand, suppose that m {\displaystyle \ m} is the number of mistakes made by the best-performing expert. At the end, this expert has weight β m {\displaystyle \ \beta ^{m}} . It follows, then, that the total weight is at least this much; in other words, W ≥ β m {\displaystyle \ W\geq \beta ^{m}} . This inequality and the above result imply Taking the natural logarithm of both sides yields Now, the Taylor series of the natural logarithm is In particular, it follows that ln ⁡ ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) < − ( 1 − β ) F t {\displaystyle \ \ln(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})<-(1-\beta )F_{t}} . Thus, Recalling that E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} and rearranging, it follows that Now, as β → 1 {\displaystyle \beta \to 1} from below, the first constant tends to 1 {\displaystyle 1} ; however, the second constant tends to + ∞ {\displaystyle +\infty } . To quantify this tradeoff, define ε = 1 − β {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1-\beta } to be the penalty associated with getting a prediction wrong. Then, again applying the Taylor series of the natural logarithm, It then follows that the mistake bound, for small ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } , can be written in the form ( 1 + ϵ 2 + O ( ε 2 ) ) m + ϵ − 1 ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ \left(1+{\frac {\epsilon }{2}}+O(\varepsilon ^{2})\right)m+\epsilon ^{-1}\ln(n)} . In English, the less that we penalize experts for their mistakes, the more that additional experts will lead to initial mistakes but the closer we get to capturing the predictive accuracy of the best expert as time goes on. In particular, given a sufficiently low value of ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and enough rounds, the randomized weighted majority algorithm can get arbitrarily close to the correct prediction rate of the best expert. In particular, as long as m {\displaystyle m} is sufficiently large compared to ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ln(n)} (so that their ratio is sufficiently small), we can assign we can obtain an upper bound on the number of mistakes equal to This implies that the "regret bound" on the algorithm (that is, how much worse it performs than the best expert) is sublinear, at O ( m ln ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O({\sqrt {m\ln(n)}})} . == Revisiting the motivation == Recall that the motivation for the randomized weighted majority algorithm was given by an example where the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time. Precisely, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds, with n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, where the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes, the deterministic weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} . By the analysis above, it follows that minimizing the number of worst-case expected mistakes is equivalent to minimizing the fun

  Read more →
• 

  Secure coding

  Secure coding is the practice of developing computer software in such a way that guards against the accidental introduction of security vulnerabilities. Defects, bugs and logic flaws are consistently the primary cause of commonly exploited software vulnerabilities. Through the analysis of thousands of reported vulnerabilities, security professionals have discovered that most vulnerabilities stem from a relatively small number of common software programming errors. By identifying the insecure coding practices that lead to these errors and educating developers on secure alternatives, organizations can take proactive steps to help significantly reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities in software before deployment. Some scholars have suggested that in order to effectively confront threats related to cybersecurity, proper security should be coded or "baked in" to the systems. With security being designed into the software, this ensures that there will be protection against insider attacks and reduces the threat to application security. Implementing secure coding practices is part of the secure by design approach to security engineering. == Buffer-overflow prevention == Buffer overflows, a common software security vulnerability, happen when a process tries to store data beyond a fixed-length buffer. For example, if there are 8 slots to store items in, there will be a problem if there is an attempt to store 9 items. In computer memory the overflowed data may overwrite data in the next location which can result in a security vulnerability (stack smashing) or program termination (segmentation fault). An example of a C program prone to a buffer overflow is If the user input is larger than the destination buffer, a buffer overflow will occur. To fix this unsafe program, use strncpy to prevent a possible buffer overflow. Another secure alternative is to dynamically allocate memory on the heap using malloc. In the above code snippet, the program attempts to copy the contents of src into dst, while also checking the return value of malloc() to ensure that enough memory was able to be allocated for the destination buffer. == Format-string attack prevention == A Format String Attack is when a malicious user supplies specific inputs that will eventually be entered as an argument to a function that performs formatting, such as printf(). The attack involves the adversary reading from or writing to the stack. The C printf function writes output to stdout. If the parameter of the printf function is not properly formatted, several security bugs can be introduced. Below is a program that is vulnerable to a format string attack. A malicious argument passed to the program could be "%s%s%s%s%s%s%s", which can crash the program from improper memory reads. == Integer-overflow prevention == Integer overflow occurs when an arithmetic operation results in an integer too large to be represented within the available space. A program which does not properly check for integer overflow introduces potential software bugs and exploits. Below is a function in C++ which attempts to confirm that the sum of x and y is less than or equal to a defined value MAX: The problem with the code is it does not check for integer overflow on the addition operation. If the sum of x and y is greater than the maximum possible value of an unsigned int, the addition operation will overflow and perhaps result in a value less than or equal to MAX, even though the sum of x and y is greater than MAX. Below is a function which checks for overflow by confirming the sum is greater than or equal to both x and y. If the sum did overflow, the sum would be less than x or less than y. == Path traversal prevention == Path traversal is a vulnerability whereby paths provided from an untrusted source are interpreted in such a way that unauthorised file access is possible. For example, consider a script that fetches an article by taking a filename, which is then read by the script and parsed. Such a script might use the following hypothetical URL to retrieve an article about dog food: https://www.example.net/cgi-bin/article.sh?name=dogfood.html If the script has no input checking, instead trusting that the filename is always valid, a malicious user could forge a URL to retrieve configuration files from the web server: https://www.example.net/cgi-bin/article.sh?name=../../../../../etc/passwd Depending on the script, this may expose the /etc/passwd file, which on Unix-like systems contains (among others) user IDs, their login names, home directory paths and shells. (See SQL injection for a similar attack.) == Regulatory drivers == Secure coding practices are increasingly mandated by regulatory frameworks governing the development and maintenance of software systems that process sensitive data. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to protect the integrity of protected health information through technical safeguards under 45 CFR 164.312(c)(1) and to implement mechanisms to authenticate electronic protected health information under 45 CFR 164.312(c)(2). The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) version 4.0 Requirement 6.2 mandates that custom software is developed securely, including training developers in secure coding techniques (6.2.2), reviewing custom code for vulnerabilities before release (6.2.3), and addressing common software attacks in development practices (6.2.4).

  Read more →
• 

  Facial recognition system

  A facial recognition system is a technology potentially capable of matching a human face from a digital image or a video frame against a database of faces. Such a system is typically employed to authenticate users through ID verification services, and works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image. Development on similar systems began in the 1960s as a form of computer application. Since their inception, facial recognition systems have seen wider uses in recent times on smartphones and in other forms of technology, such as robotics. Because computerized facial recognition involves the measurement of a human's physiological characteristics, facial recognition systems are categorized as biometrics. Although the accuracy of facial recognition systems as a biometric technology is lower than iris recognition, fingerprint image acquisition, palm recognition or voice recognition, it is widely adopted due to its contactless process. Facial recognition systems have been deployed in advanced human–computer interaction, video surveillance, law enforcement, passenger screening, decisions on employment and housing, and automatic indexing of images. Facial recognition systems are employed throughout the world today by governments and private companies. Their effectiveness varies, and some systems have previously been scrapped because of their ineffectiveness. The use of facial recognition systems has also raised controversy, with claims that the systems violate citizens' privacy, commonly make incorrect identifications, encourage gender norms and racial profiling, and do not protect important biometric data. The appearance of synthetic media such as deepfakes has also raised concerns about its security. These claims have led to the ban of facial recognition systems in several cities in the United States. Growing societal concerns led social networking company Meta Platforms to shut down its Facebook facial recognition system in 2021, deleting the face-scan data of more than one billion users. The change represented one of the largest shifts in facial recognition usage in the technology's history. IBM also stopped offering facial recognition technology due to similar concerns. == History of facial recognition technology == Automated facial recognition was pioneered in the 1960s by Woody Bledsoe, Helen Chan Wolf, and Charles Bisson, whose work focused on teaching computers to recognize human faces. Their early facial recognition project was dubbed "man-machine" because a human first needed to establish the coordinates of facial features in a photograph before they could be used by a computer for recognition. Using a graphics tablet, a human would pinpoint facial features coordinates, such as the pupil centers, the inside and outside corners of eyes, and the widows peak in the hairline. The coordinates were used to calculate 20 individual distances, including the width of the mouth and of the eyes. A human could process about 40 pictures an hour, building a database of these computed distances. A computer would then automatically compare the distances for each photograph, calculate the difference between the distances, and return the closed records as a possible match. In 1970, Takeo Kanade publicly demonstrated a face-matching system that located anatomical features such as the chin and calculated the distance ratio between facial features without human intervention. Later tests revealed that the system could not always reliably identify facial features. Nonetheless, interest in the subject grew and in 1977 Kanade published the first detailed book on facial recognition technology. In 1993, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) established the face recognition technology program FERET to develop "automatic face recognition capabilities" that could be employed in a productive real life environment "to assist security, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duties." Face recognition systems that had been trialled in research labs were evaluated. The FERET tests found that while the performance of existing automated facial recognition systems varied, a handful of existing methods could viably be used to recognize faces in still images taken in a controlled environment. The FERET tests spawned three US companies that sold automated facial recognition systems. Vision Corporation and Miros Inc were founded in 1994, by researchers who used the results of the FERET tests as a selling point. Viisage Technology was established by an identification card defense contractor in 1996 to commercially exploit the rights to the facial recognition algorithm developed by Alex Pentland at MIT. Following the 1993 FERET face-recognition vendor test, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in West Virginia and New Mexico became the first DMV offices to use automated facial recognition systems to prevent people from obtaining multiple driving licenses using different names. Driver's licenses in the United States were at that point a commonly accepted form of photo identification. DMV offices across the United States were undergoing a technological upgrade and were in the process of establishing databases of digital ID photographs. This enabled DMV offices to deploy the facial recognition systems on the market to search photographs for new driving licenses against the existing DMV database. DMV offices became one of the first major markets for automated facial recognition technology and introduced US citizens to facial recognition as a standard method of identification. The increase of the US prison population in the 1990s prompted U.S. states to established connected and automated identification systems that incorporated digital biometric databases, in some instances this included facial recognition. In 1999, Minnesota incorporated the facial recognition system FaceIT by Visionics into a mug shot booking system that allowed police, judges and court officers to track criminals across the state. Until the 1990s, facial recognition systems were developed primarily by using photographic portraits of human faces. Research on face recognition to reliably locate a face in an image that contains other objects gained traction in the early 1990s with the principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA method of face detection is also known as Eigenface and was developed by Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland. Turk and Pentland combined the conceptual approach of the Karhunen–Loève theorem and factor analysis, to develop a linear model. Eigenfaces are determined based on global and orthogonal features in human faces. A human face is calculated as a weighted combination of a number of Eigenfaces. Because few Eigenfaces were used to encode human faces of a given population, Turk and Pentland's PCA face detection method greatly reduced the amount of data that had to be processed to detect a face. Pentland in 1994 defined Eigenface features, including eigen eyes, eigen mouths and eigen noses, to advance the use of PCA in facial recognition. In 1997, the PCA Eigenface method of face recognition was improved upon using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to produce Fisherfaces. LDA Fisherfaces became dominantly used in PCA feature based face recognition. While Eigenfaces were also used for face reconstruction. In these approaches no global structure of the face is calculated which links the facial features or parts. Purely feature based approaches to facial recognition were overtaken in the late 1990s by the Bochum system, which used Gabor filter to record the face features and computed a grid of the face structure to link the features. Christoph von der Malsburg and his research team at the University of Bochum developed Elastic Bunch Graph Matching in the mid-1990s to extract a face out of an image using skin segmentation. By 1997, the face detection method developed by Malsburg outperformed most other facial detection systems on the market. The so-called "Bochum system" of face detection was sold commercially on the market as ZN-Face to operators of airports and other busy locations. The software was "robust enough to make identifications from less-than-perfect face views. It can also often see through such impediments to identification as mustaches, beards, changed hairstyles and glasses—even sunglasses". Real-time face detection in video footage became possible in 2001 with the Viola–Jones object detection framework for faces. Paul Viola and Michael Jones combined their face detection method with the Haar-like feature approach to object recognition in digital images to launch AdaBoost, the first real-time frontal-view face detector. By 2015, the Viola–Jones algorithm had been implemented using small low power detectors on handheld devices and embedded systems. Therefore, the Viola–Jones algorithm has not only broadened the practical application of face recognition systems but

  Read more →
• 

  Statistical classification

  When classification is performed by a computer, statistical methods are normally used to develop the algorithm. Often, the individual observations are analyzed into a set of quantifiable properties, known variously as explanatory variables or features. These properties may variously be categorical (e.g. "A", "B", "AB" or "O", for blood type), ordinal (e.g. "large", "medium" or "small"), integer-valued (e.g. the number of occurrences of a particular word in an email) or real-valued (e.g. a measurement of blood pressure). Other classifiers work by comparing observations to previous observations by means of a similarity or distance function. An algorithm that implements classification, especially in a concrete implementation, is known as a classifier. The term "classifier" sometimes also refers to the mathematical function, implemented by a classification algorithm, that maps input data to a category. Terminology across fields is quite varied. In statistics, where classification is often done with logistic regression or a similar procedure, the properties of observations are termed explanatory variables (or independent variables, regressors, etc.), and the categories to be predicted are known as outcomes, which are considered to be possible values of the dependent variable. In machine learning, the observations are often known as instances, the explanatory variables are termed features (grouped into a feature vector), and the possible categories to be predicted are classes. Other fields may use different terminology: e.g. in community ecology, the term "classification" normally refers to cluster analysis. == Relation to other problems == Classification and clustering are examples of the more general problem of pattern recognition, which is the assignment of some sort of output value to a given input value. Other examples are regression, which assigns a real-valued output to each input; sequence labeling, which assigns a class to each member of a sequence of values (for example, part of speech tagging, which assigns a part of speech to each word in an input sentence); parsing, which assigns a parse tree to an input sentence, describing the syntactic structure of the sentence; etc. A common subclass of classification is probabilistic classification. Algorithms of this nature use statistical inference to find the best class for a given instance. Unlike other algorithms, which simply output a "best" class, probabilistic algorithms output a probability of the instance being a member of each of the possible classes. The best class is normally then selected as the one with the highest probability. However, such an algorithm has numerous advantages over non-probabilistic classifiers: It can output a confidence value associated with its choice (in general, a classifier that can do this is known as a confidence-weighted classifier). Correspondingly, it can abstain when its confidence of choosing any particular output is too low. Because of the probabilities which are generated, probabilistic classifiers can be more effectively incorporated into larger machine-learning tasks, in a way that partially or completely avoids the problem of error propagation. == Frequentist procedures == Early work on statistical classification was undertaken by Fisher, in the context of two-group problems, leading to Fisher's linear discriminant function as the rule for assigning a group to a new observation. This early work assumed that data-values within each of the two groups had a multivariate normal distribution. The extension of this same context to more than two groups has also been considered with a restriction imposed that the classification rule should be linear. Later work for the multivariate normal distribution allowed the classifier to be nonlinear: several classification rules can be derived based on different adjustments of the Mahalanobis distance, with a new observation being assigned to the group whose centre has the lowest adjusted distance from the observation. == Bayesian procedures == Unlike frequentist procedures, Bayesian classification procedures provide a natural way of taking into account any available information about the relative sizes of the different groups within the overall population. Bayesian procedures tend to be computationally expensive and, in the days before Markov chain Monte Carlo computations were developed, approximations for Bayesian clustering rules were devised. Some Bayesian procedures involve the calculation of group-membership probabilities: these provide a more informative outcome than a simple attribution of a single group-label to each new observation. == Binary and multiclass classification == Classification can be thought of as two separate problems – binary classification and multiclass classification. In binary classification, a better understood task, only two classes are involved, whereas multiclass classification involves assigning an object to one of several classes. Since many classification methods have been developed specifically for binary classification, multiclass classification often requires the combined use of multiple binary classifiers. == Feature vectors == Most algorithms describe an individual instance whose category is to be predicted using a feature vector of individual, measurable properties of the instance. Each property is termed a feature, also known in statistics as an explanatory variable (or independent variable, although features may or may not be statistically independent). Features may variously be binary (e.g. "on" or "off"); categorical (e.g. "A", "B", "AB" or "O", for blood type); ordinal (e.g. "large", "medium" or "small"); integer-valued (e.g. the number of occurrences of a particular word in an email); or real-valued (e.g. a measurement of blood pressure). If the instance is an image, the feature values might correspond to the pixels of an image; if the instance is a piece of text, the feature values might be occurrence frequencies of different words. Some algorithms work only in terms of discrete data and require that real-valued or integer-valued data be discretized into groups (e.g. less than 5, between 5 and 10, or greater than 10). == Linear classifiers == A large number of algorithms for classification can be phrased in terms of a linear function that assigns a score to each possible category k by combining the feature vector of an instance with a vector of weights, using a dot product. The predicted category is the one with the highest score. This type of score function is known as a linear predictor function and has the following general form: score ⁡ ( X i , k ) = β k ⋅ X i , {\displaystyle \operatorname {score} (\mathbf {X} _{i},k)={\boldsymbol {\beta }}_{k}\cdot \mathbf {X} _{i},} where Xi is the feature vector for instance i, βk is the vector of weights corresponding to category k, and score(Xi, k) is the score associated with assigning instance i to category k. In discrete choice theory, where instances represent people and categories represent choices, the score is considered the utility associated with person i choosing category k. Algorithms with this basic setup are known as linear classifiers. What distinguishes them is the procedure for determining (training) the optimal weights/coefficients and the way that the score is interpreted. Examples of such algorithms include Logistic regression – Statistical model for a binary dependent variable Multinomial logistic regression – Regression for more than two discrete outcomes Probit regression – Statistical regression where the dependent variable can take only two valuesPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets The perceptron algorithm Support vector machine – Set of methods for supervised statistical learning Linear discriminant analysis – Method used in statistics, pattern recognition, and other fields == Algorithms == Since no single form of classification is appropriate for all data sets, a large toolkit of classification algorithms has been developed. The most commonly used include: Artificial neural networks – Computational model used in machine learningPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Boosting (machine learning) – Ensemble learning method Random forest – Tree-based ensemble machine learning methods Genetic programming – Evolving computer programs with techniques analogous to natural genetic processes Gene expression programming – Evolutionary algorithm Multi expression programming Linear genetic programming Kernel estimation – Concept in statisticsPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets k-nearest neighbor – Non-parametric classification methodPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Learning vector quantization Linear classifier – Statistical classification in machine learning Fisher's linear discriminant – Method used in statistics, pattern recognition, and other fieldsPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Logistic r

  Read more →
• 

  AdaBoost

  AdaBoost (short for Adaptive Boosting) is a statistical classification meta-algorithm formulated by Yoav Freund and Robert Schapire in 1995, who won the 2003 Gödel Prize for their work. It can be used in conjunction with many types of learning algorithm to improve performance. The output of multiple weak learners is combined into a weighted sum that represents the final output of the boosted classifier. Usually, AdaBoost is presented for binary classification, although it can be generalized to multiple classes or bounded intervals of real values. AdaBoost is adaptive in the sense that subsequent weak learners (models) are adjusted in favor of instances misclassified by previous models. In some problems, it can be less susceptible to overfitting than other learning algorithms. The individual learners can be weak, but as long as the performance of each one is slightly better than random guessing, the final model can be proven to converge to a strong learner. Although AdaBoost is typically used to combine weak base learners (such as decision stumps), it has been shown to also effectively combine strong base learners (such as deeper decision trees), producing an even more accurate model. Every learning algorithm tends to suit some problem types better than others, and typically has many different parameters and configurations to adjust before it achieves optimal performance on a dataset. AdaBoost (with decision trees as the weak learners) is often referred to as the best out-of-the-box classifier. When used with decision tree learning, information gathered at each stage of the AdaBoost algorithm about the relative 'hardness' of each training sample is fed into the tree-growing algorithm such that later trees tend to focus on harder-to-classify examples. == Training == AdaBoost refers to a particular method of training a boosted classifier. A boosted classifier is a classifier of the form F T ( x ) = ∑ t = 1 T f t ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{T}(x)=\sum _{t=1}^{T}f_{t}(x)} where each f t {\displaystyle f_{t}} is a weak learner that takes an object x {\displaystyle x} as input and returns a value indicating the class of the object. For example, in the two-class problem, the sign of the weak learner's output identifies the predicted object class and the absolute value gives the confidence in that classification. Each weak learner produces an output hypothesis h {\displaystyle h} which fixes a prediction h ( x i ) {\displaystyle h(x_{i})} for each sample in the training set. At each iteration t {\displaystyle t} , a weak learner is selected and assigned a coefficient α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} such that the total training error E t {\displaystyle E_{t}} of the resulting t {\displaystyle t} -stage boosted classifier is minimized. E t = ∑ i E [ F t − 1 ( x i ) + α t h ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle E_{t}=\sum _{i}E[F_{t-1}(x_{i})+\alpha _{t}h(x_{i})]} Here F t − 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{t-1}(x)} is the boosted classifier that has been built up to the previous stage of training and f t ( x ) = α t h ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{t}(x)=\alpha _{t}h(x)} is the weak learner that is being considered for addition to the final classifier. === Weighting === At each iteration of the training process, a weight w i , t {\displaystyle w_{i,t}} is assigned to each sample in the training set equal to the current error E ( F t − 1 ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle E(F_{t-1}(x_{i}))} on that sample. These weights can be used in the training of the weak learner. For instance, decision trees can be grown which favor the splitting of sets of samples with large weights. == Derivation == This derivation follows Rojas (2009): Suppose we have a data set { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x N , y N ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{N},y_{N})\}} where each item x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} has an associated class y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} , and a set of weak classifiers { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} each of which outputs a classification k j ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{j}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} for each item. After the ( m − 1 ) {\displaystyle (m-1)} -th iteration our boosted classifier is a linear combination of the weak classifiers of the form: C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) = α 1 k 1 ( x i ) + ⋯ + α m − 1 k m − 1 ( x i ) , {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})=\alpha _{1}k_{1}(x_{i})+\cdots +\alpha _{m-1}k_{m-1}(x_{i}),} where the class will be the sign of C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})} . At the m {\displaystyle m} -th iteration we want to extend this to a better boosted classifier by adding another weak classifier k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , with another weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} : C m ( x i ) = C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) + α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{m}(x_{i})=C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})+\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})} So it remains to determine which weak classifier is the best choice for k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , and what its weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} should be. We define the total error E {\displaystyle E} of C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} as the sum of its exponential loss on each data point, given as follows: E = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C m ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{m}(x_{i})}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} Letting w i ( 1 ) = 1 {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(1)}=1} and w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} for m > 1 {\displaystyle m>1} , we have: E = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} We can split this summation between those data points that are correctly classified by k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} (so y i k m ( x i ) = 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=1} ) and those that are misclassified (so y i k m ( x i ) = − 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=-1} ): E = ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ( e α m − e − α m ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E&=\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}}\\&=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}\left(e^{\alpha _{m}}-e^{-\alpha _{m}}\right)\end{aligned}}} Since the only part of the right-hand side of this equation that depends on k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} is ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} , we see that the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} is the one in the set { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} that minimizes ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} [assuming that α m > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}>0} ], i.e. the weak classifier with the lowest weighted error (with weights w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} ). To determine the desired weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} with the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that we just determined, we differentiate: d E d α m = d ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m ) d α m {\displaystyle {\frac {dE}{d\alpha _{m}}}={\frac {d(\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}})}{d\alpha _{m}}}} The value of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes the above expression is: α m = 1 2 ln ⁡ ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}}\right)} We calculate the weighted error rate of the weak classifier to be ϵ m = ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{m}={\frac {\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}}}} , so it follows that: α m = 1 2 ln ⁡ ( 1 − ϵ m ϵ m ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {1-\epsilon _{m}}{\epsilon _{m}}}\right)} which is the negative logit function multiplied by 0.5. Due to the convexity of E {\displaystyle E} as a function of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} , this new expression for α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} gives the global minimum of the loss function. Note: This derivation only applies when k m ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} , though it can be a good starting guess in other cases, such as when the weak learner is biased ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b } , a ≠ − b {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b\},a\neq -b} ), has multiple leaves ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b , … , n } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b,\dots ,n\}} ) or is some other function k m ( x ) ∈ R {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \mathbb {R} } . Thus we have derived the AdaBoost algorithm: At each

  Read more →
• 

  Physical access

  Physical access is a term in computer security that refers to the ability of people to physically gain access to a computer system. According to Gregory White, "Given physical access to an office, the knowledgeable attacker will quickly be able to find the information needed to gain access to the organization's computer systems and network." == Attacks and countermeasures == === Attacks === Physical access opens up a variety of avenues for hacking. Michael Meyers notes that "the best network software security measures can be rendered useless if you fail to physically protect your systems," since an intruder could simply walk off with a server and crack the password at his leisure. Physical access also allows hardware keyloggers to be installed. An intruder may be able to boot from a CD or other external media and then read unencrypted data on the hard drive. They may also exploit a lack of access control in the boot loader; for instance, pressing F8 while certain versions of Microsoft Windows are booting, specifying 'init=/bin/sh' as a boot parameter to Linux (usually done by editing the command line in GRUB), etc. One could also use a rogue device to access a poorly secured wireless network; if the signal were sufficiently strong, one might not even need to breach the perimeter. === Countermeasures === IT security standards in the United States typically call for physical access to be limited by locked server rooms, sign-in sheets, etc. Physical access systems and IT security systems have historically been administered by separate departments of organizations, but are increasingly being seen as having interdependent functions needing a single, converged security policy. An IT department could, for instance, check security log entries for suspicious logons occurring after business hours, and then use keycard swipe records from a building access control system to narrow down the list of suspects to those who were in the building at that time. Surveillance cameras might also be used to deter or detect unauthorized access.

  Read more →
• 

  GNU Octave

  GNU Octave is a scientific programming language for scientific computing and numerical computation. Among other things, Octave can be used to solve linear and nonlinear problems numerically and to perform other numerical experiments using a language that is mostly compatible with MATLAB. It may also be used as a batch-oriented language. As part of the GNU Project, it is free software under the terms of the GNU General Public License. == History == The project was conceived around 1988. At first it was intended to be a companion to a chemical reactor design course. Full development was started by John W. Eaton in 1992. The first alpha release dates back to 4 January 1993 and on 17 February 1994 version 1.0 was released. Version 9.2.0 was released on 7 June 2024. The program is named after Octave Levenspiel, a former professor of the principal author. Levenspiel was known for his ability to perform quick back-of-the-envelope calculations. == Development history == == Developments == In addition to use on desktops for personal scientific computing, Octave is used in academia and industry. For example, Octave was used on a massive parallel computer at Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center to find vulnerabilities related to guessing social security numbers. Acceleration with OpenCL or CUDA is also possible with use of GPUs. == Technical details == Octave is written in C++ using the C++ standard library. Octave uses an interpreter to execute the Octave scripting language. Octave is extensible using dynamically loadable modules. Octave interpreter has an OpenGL-based graphics engine to create plots, graphs and charts and to save or print them. Alternatively, gnuplot can be used for the same purpose. Octave includes a graphical user interface (GUI) in addition to the traditional command-line interface (CLI); see #User interfaces for details. == Octave, the language == The Octave language is an interpreted programming language. It is a structured programming language (similar to C) and supports many common C standard library functions, and also certain UNIX system calls and functions. However, it does not support passing arguments by reference although function arguments are copy-on-write to avoid unnecessary duplication. Octave programs consist of a list of function calls or a script. The syntax is matrix-based and provides various functions for matrix operations. It supports various data structures and allows object-oriented programming. Its syntax is very similar to MATLAB, and careful programming of a script will allow it to run on both Octave and MATLAB. Because Octave is made available under the GNU General Public License, it may be freely changed, copied and used. The program runs on Microsoft Windows and most Unix and Unix-like operating systems, including Linux, Android, and macOS. == Notable features == === Command and variable name completion === Typing a TAB character on the command line causes Octave to attempt to complete variable, function, and file names (similar to Bash's tab completion). Octave uses the text before the cursor as the initial portion of the name to complete. === Command history === When running interactively, Octave saves the commands typed in an internal buffer so that they can be recalled and edited. === Data structures === Octave includes a limited amount of support for organizing data in structures. In this example, we see a structure x with elements a, b, and c, (an integer, an array, and a string, respectively): === Short-circuit Boolean operators === Octave's && and || logical operators are evaluated in a short-circuit fashion (like the corresponding operators in the C language), in contrast to the element-by-element operators & and |. === Increment and decrement operators === Octave includes the C-like increment and decrement operators ++ and -- in both their prefix and postfix forms. Octave also does augmented assignment, e.g. x += 5. === Unwind-protect === Octave supports a limited form of exception handling modelled after the unwind_protect of Lisp. The general form of an unwind_protect block looks like this: As a general rule, GNU Octave recognizes as termination of a given block either the keyword end (which is compatible with the MATLAB language) or a more specific keyword endblock or, in some cases, end_block. As a consequence, an unwind_protect block can be terminated either with the keyword end_unwind_protect as in the example, or with the more portable keyword end. The cleanup part of the block is always executed. In case an exception is raised by the body part, cleanup is executed immediately before propagating the exception outside the block unwind_protect. GNU Octave also supports another form of exception handling (compatible with the MATLAB language): This latter form differs from an unwind_protect block in two ways. First, exception_handling is only executed when an exception is raised by body. Second, after the execution of exception_handling the exception is not propagated outside the block (unless a rethrow( lasterror ) statement is explicitly inserted within the exception_handling code). === Variable-length argument lists === Octave has a mechanism for handling functions that take an unspecified number of arguments without explicit upper limit. To specify a list of zero or more arguments, use the special argument varargin as the last (or only) argument in the list. varargin is a cell array containing all the input arguments. === Variable-length return lists === A function can be set up to return any number of values by using the special return value varargout. For example: === C++ integration === It is also possible to execute Octave code directly in a C++ program. For example, here is a code snippet for calling rand([10,1]): C and C++ code can be integrated into GNU Octave by creating oct files, or using the MATLAB compatible MEX files. == MATLAB compatibility == Octave has been built with MATLAB compatibility in mind, and shares many features with MATLAB: % Script: myscript.m a = 5; b = a 2 % Function: myfunc.m function result = myfunc(x) result = x^2 + 3; end Matrices as fundamental data type. Built-in support for complex numbers. Powerful built-in math functions and extensive function libraries. Extensibility in the form of user-defined functions. Octave treats incompatibility with MATLAB as a bug; therefore, it could be considered a software clone, which does not infringe software copyright as per Lotus v. Borland court case. MATLAB scripts from the MathWorks' FileExchange repository in principle are compatible with Octave. However, while they are often provided and uploaded by users under an Octave compatible and proper open source BSD license, the FileExchange Terms of use prohibit any usage beside MathWorks' proprietary MATLAB. === Syntax compatibility === There are a few purposeful, albeit minor, syntax additions Archived 2012-04-26 at the Wayback Machine: Comment lines can be prefixed with the # character as well as the % character; Various C-based operators ++, --, +=, =, /= are supported; Elements can be referenced without creating a new variable by cascaded indexing, e.g. [1:10](3); Strings can be defined with the double-quote " character as well as the single-quote ' character; When the variable type is single (a single-precision floating-point number), Octave calculates the "mean" in the single-domain (MATLAB in double-domain) which is faster but gives less accurate results; Blocks can also be terminated with more specific Control structure keywords, i.e., endif, endfor, endwhile, etc.; Functions can be defined within scripts and at the Octave prompt; Presence of a do-until loop (similar to do-while in C). === Function compatibility === Many, but not all, of the numerous MATLAB functions are available in GNU Octave, some of them accessible through packages in Octave Forge. The functions available as part of either core Octave or Forge packages are listed online Archived 2024-03-14 at the Wayback Machine. A list of unavailable functions is included in the Octave function __unimplemented.m__. Unimplemented functions are also listed under many Octave Forge packages in the Octave Wiki. When an unimplemented function is called the following error message is shown: == User interfaces == Octave comes with an official graphical user interface (GUI) and an integrated development environment (IDE) based on Qt. It has been available since Octave 3.8, and has become the default interface (over the command-line interface) with the release of Octave 4.0. It was well-received by an EDN contributor, who wrote "[Octave] now has a very workable GUI" in reviewing the then-new GUI in 2014. Several 3rd-party graphical front-ends have also been developed, like ToolboX for coding education. == GUI applications == With Octave code, the user can create GUI applications. See GUI Development (GNU Octave (version 7.1.0)). Below are some examples: Button, edit control, checkboxTextboxListbox wit

  Read more →
• 

  Differential evolution

  Differential evolution (DE) is an evolutionary algorithm to optimize a problem by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a given measure of quality. Such methods are commonly known as metaheuristics as they make few or no assumptions about the optimized problem and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. However, metaheuristics such as DE do not guarantee an optimal solution is ever found. DE is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means DE does not require the optimization problem to be differentiable, as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. DE can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. DE optimizes a problem by maintaining a population of candidate solutions and creating new candidate solutions by combining existing ones according to its simple formulae, and then keeping whichever candidate solution has the best score or fitness on the optimization problem at hand. In this way, the optimization problem is treated as a black box that merely provides a measure of quality given a candidate solution and the gradient is therefore not needed. == History == Storn and Price introduced Differential Evolution in 1995. Books have been published on theoretical and practical aspects of using DE in parallel computing, multiobjective optimization, constrained optimization, and the books also contain surveys of application areas. Surveys on the multi-faceted research aspects of DE can be found in journal articles. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the DE algorithm works by having a population of candidate solutions (called agents). These agents are moved around in the search-space by using simple mathematical formulae to combine the positions of existing agents from the population. If the new position of an agent is an improvement then it is accepted and forms part of the population, otherwise the new position is simply discarded. The process is repeated and by doing so it is hoped, but not guaranteed, that a satisfactory solution will eventually be discovered. Formally, let f : R n → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } be the fitness function which must be minimized (note that maximization can be performed by considering the function h := − f {\displaystyle h:=-f} instead). The function takes a candidate solution as argument in the form of a vector of real numbers. It produces a real number as output which indicates the fitness of the given candidate solution. The gradient of f {\displaystyle f} is not known. The goal is to find a solution m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } for which f ( m ) ≤ f ( p ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {m} )\leq f(\mathbf {p} )} for all p {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} } in the search-space, which means that m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } is the global minimum. Let x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} designate a candidate solution (agent) in the population. The basic DE algorithm can then be described as follows: Choose the parameters NP ≥ 4 {\displaystyle {\text{NP}}\geq 4} , CR ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\text{CR}}\in [0,1]} , and F ∈ [ 0 , 2 ] {\displaystyle F\in [0,2]} . NP : NP {\displaystyle {\text{NP}}} is the population size, i.e. the number of candidate agents or "parents". CR : The parameter CR ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\text{CR}}\in [0,1]} is called the crossover probability. F : The parameter F ∈ [ 0 , 2 ] {\displaystyle F\in [0,2]} is called the differential weight. Typical settings are N P = 10 n {\displaystyle NP=10n} , C R = 0.9 {\displaystyle CR=0.9} and F = 0.8 {\displaystyle F=0.8} . Optimization performance may be greatly impacted by these choices; see below. Initialize all agents x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } with random positions in the search-space. Until a termination criterion is met (e.g. number of iterations performed, or adequate fitness reached), repeat the following: For each agent x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } in the population do: Pick three agents a , b {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} ,\mathbf {b} } , and c {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} } from the population at random, they must be distinct from each other as well as from agent x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . ( a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } is called the "base" vector.) Pick a random index R ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle R\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} where n {\displaystyle n} is the dimensionality of the problem being optimized. Compute the agent's potentially new position y = [ y 1 , … , y n ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} =[y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}]} as follows: For each i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , pick a uniformly distributed random number r i ∼ U ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle r_{i}\sim U(0,1)} If r i < C R {\displaystyle r_{i} Read more →

• 

  Minimum Population Search

  In evolutionary computation, Minimum Population Search (MPS) is a computational method that optimizes a problem by iteratively trying to improve a set of candidate solutions with regard to a given measure of quality. It solves a problem by evolving a small population of candidate solutions by means of relatively simple arithmetical operations. MPS is a metaheuristic as it makes few or no assumptions about the problem being optimized and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. For problems where finding the precise global optimum is less important than finding an acceptable local optimum in a fixed amount of time, using a metaheuristic such as MPS may be preferable to alternatives such as brute-force search or gradient descent. MPS is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means MPS does not require for the optimization problem to be differentiable as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. MPS can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. == Background == In a similar way to Differential evolution, MPS uses difference vectors between the members of the population in order to generate new solutions. It attempts to provide an efficient use of function evaluations by maintaining a small population size. If the population size is smaller than the dimensionality of the search space, then the solutions generated through difference vectors will be constrained to the n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} dimensional hyperplane. A smaller population size will lead to a more restricted subspace. With a population size equal to the dimensionality of the problem ( n = d ) {\displaystyle (n=d)} , the “line/hyperplane points” in MPS will be generated within a d − 1 {\displaystyle d-1} dimensional hyperplane. Taking a step orthogonal to this hyperplane will allow the search process to cover all the dimensions of the search space. Population size is a fundamental parameter in the performance of population-based heuristics. Larger populations promote exploration, but they also allow fewer generations, and this can reduce the chance of convergence. Searching with a small population can increase the chances of convergence and the efficient use of function evaluations, but it can also induce the risk of premature convergence. If the risk of premature convergence can be avoided, then a population-based heuristic could benefit from the efficiency and faster convergence rate of a smaller population. To avoid premature convergence, it is important to have a diversified population. By including techniques for explicitly increasing diversity and exploration, it is possible to have smaller populations with less risk of premature convergence. === Thresheld Convergence === Thresheld Convergence (TC) is a diversification technique which attempts to separate the processes of exploration and exploitation. TC uses a “threshold” function to establish a minimum search step, and managing this step makes it possible to influence the transition from exploration to exploitation, convergence is thus “held” back until the last stages of the search process. The goal of a controlled transition is to avoid an early concentration of the population around a few search regions and avoid the loss of diversity which can cause premature convergence. Thresheld Convergence has been successfully applied to several population-based metaheuristics such as Particle Swarm Optimization, Differential evolution, Evolution strategies, Simulated annealing and Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. The ideal case for Thresheld Convergence is to have one sample solution from each attraction basin, and for each sample solution to have the same relative fitness with respect to its local optimum. Enforcing a minimum step aims to achieve this ideal case. In MPS Thresheld Convergence is specifically used to preserve diversity and avoid premature convergence by establishing a minimum search step. By disallowing new solutions which are too close to members of the current population, TC forces a strong exploration during the early stages of the search while preserving the diversity of the (small) population. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the MPS algorithm works by having a population of size equal to the dimension of the problem. New solutions are generated by exploring the hyperplane defined by the current solutions (by means of difference vectors) and performing an additional orthogonal step in order to avoid getting caught in this hyperplane. The step sizes are controlled by the Thresheld Convergence technique, which gradually reduces step sizes as the search process advances. An outline for the algorithm is given below: Generate the first initial population. Allowing these solutions to lie near the bounds of the search space generally gives good results: s k = ( r s 1 ∗ b o u n d 1 / 2 , r s 2 ∗ b o u n d 2 / 2 , . . . , r s n ∗ b o u n d n / 2 ) {\displaystyle s_{k}=(rs_{1}bound_{1}/2,rs_{2}bound_{2}/2,...,rs_{n}bound_{n}/2)} where s k {\displaystyle s_{k}} is the k {\displaystyle k} -th population member, r s i {\displaystyle rs_{i}} are random numbers which can be −1 or 1, and the b o u n d i {\displaystyle bound_{i}} are the lower and upper bounds on each dimension. While a stop condition is not reached: Update threshold convergence values ( m i n _ s t e p {\displaystyle min\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} ) Calculate the centroid of the current population ( x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} ) For each member of the population ( x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} ), generate a new offspring as follows: Uniformly generate a scaling factor ( F i {\displaystyle F_{i}} ) between − m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle -max\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} Generate a vector ( x o {\displaystyle x_{o}} ) orthogonal to the difference vector between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} Calculate a scaling factor for the orthogonal vector: m i n _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m i n _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle min\_orth=sqrt(max(min\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} m a x _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m a x _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle max\_orth=sqrt(max(max\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} o r t h _ s t e p = u n i f o r m ( m i n _ o r t h , m a x _ o r t h ) {\displaystyle orth\_step=uniform(min\_orth,max\_orth)} Generate the new solution by adding the difference and the orthogonal vectors to the original solution n e w _ s o l u t i o n = x i + F i ∗ ( x i − x c ) ∗ o r t h _ s t e p ∗ x o {\displaystyle new\_solution=x_{i}+F_{i}(x_{i}-x_{c})orth\_stepx_{o}} Pick the best members between the old population and the new one by discarding the least fit members. Return the single best solution or the best population found as the final result.

  Read more →
• 

  Harris corner detector

  The Harris corner detector is a corner detection operator that is commonly used in computer vision algorithms to extract corners and infer features of an image. It was first introduced by Chris Harris and Mike Stephens in 1988 upon the improvement of Moravec's corner detector. Compared to its predecessor, Harris' corner detector takes the differential of the corner score into account with reference to direction directly, instead of using shifting patches for every 45 degree angles, and has been proved to be more accurate in distinguishing between edges and corners. Since then, it has been improved and adopted in many algorithms to preprocess images for subsequent applications. == Introduction == A corner is a point whose local neighborhood stands in two dominant and different edge directions. In other words, a corner can be interpreted as the junction of two edges, where an edge is a sudden change in image brightness. Corners are the important features in the image, and they are generally termed as interest points which are invariant to translation, rotation and illumination. Although corners are only a small percentage of the image, they contain the most important features in restoring image information, and they can be used to minimize the amount of processed data for motion tracking, image stitching, building 2D mosaics, stereo vision, image representation and other related computer vision areas. In order to capture the corners from the image, researchers have proposed many different corner detectors including the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi (KLT) operator and the Harris operator which are most simple, efficient and reliable for use in corner detection. These two popular methodologies are both closely associated with and based on the local structure matrix. Compared to the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi corner detector, the Harris corner detector provides good repeatability under changing illumination and rotation, and therefore, it is more often used in stereo matching and image database retrieval. Although there still exist drawbacks and limitations, the Harris corner detector is still an important and fundamental technique for many computer vision applications. == Development of Harris corner detection algorithm == Source: Without loss of generality, we will assume a grayscale 2-dimensional image is used. Let this image be given by I {\displaystyle I} . Consider taking an image patch ( x , y ) ∈ W {\displaystyle (x,y)\in W} (window) and shifting it by ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle (\Delta x,\Delta y)} . The sum of squared differences (SSD) between these two patches, denoted f {\displaystyle f} , is given by: f ( Δ x , Δ y ) = ∑ ( x k , y k ) ∈ W ( I ( x k , y k ) − I ( x k + Δ x , y k + Δ y ) ) 2 {\displaystyle f(\Delta x,\Delta y)={\underset {(x_{k},y_{k})\in W}{\sum }}\left(I(x_{k},y_{k})-I(x_{k}+\Delta x,y_{k}+\Delta y)\right)^{2}} I ( x + Δ x , y + Δ y ) {\displaystyle I(x+\Delta x,y+\Delta y)} can be approximated by a Taylor expansion. Let I x {\displaystyle I_{x}} and I y {\displaystyle I_{y}} be the partial derivatives of I {\displaystyle I} , such that I ( x + Δ x , y + Δ y ) ≈ I ( x , y ) + I x ( x , y ) Δ x + I y ( x , y ) Δ y {\displaystyle I(x+\Delta x,y+\Delta y)\approx I(x,y)+I_{x}(x,y)\Delta x+I_{y}(x,y)\Delta y} This produces the approximation f ( Δ x , Δ y ) ≈ ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W ( I x ( x , y ) Δ x + I y ( x , y ) Δ y ) 2 , {\displaystyle f(\Delta x,\Delta y)\approx {\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}\left(I_{x}(x,y)\Delta x+I_{y}(x,y)\Delta y\right)^{2},} which can be written in matrix form: f ( Δ x , Δ y ) ≈ ( Δ x Δ y ) M ( Δ x Δ y ) , {\displaystyle f(\Delta x,\Delta y)\approx {\begin{pmatrix}\Delta x&\Delta y\end{pmatrix}}M{\begin{pmatrix}\Delta x\\\Delta y\end{pmatrix}},} where M is the structure tensor, M = ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W [ I x 2 I x I y I x I y I y 2 ] = [ ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W I x 2 ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W I x I y ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W I x I y ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W I y 2 ] {\displaystyle M={\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}{\begin{bmatrix}I_{x}^{2}&I_{x}I_{y}\\I_{x}I_{y}&I_{y}^{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}{\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}I_{x}^{2}&{\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}I_{x}I_{y}\\{\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}I_{x}I_{y}&{\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}I_{y}^{2}\end{bmatrix}}} == Process of Harris corner detection algorithm == Commonly, Harris corner detector algorithm can be divided into five steps. Color to grayscale Spatial derivative calculation Structure tensor setup Harris response calculation Non-maximum suppression === Color to grayscale === If we use Harris corner detector in a color image, the first step is to convert it into a grayscale image, which will enhance the processing speed. The value of the gray scale pixel can be computed as a weighted sums of the values R, B and G of the color image, ∑ C ∈ { R , G , B } w C ⋅ C {\displaystyle \sum _{C\,\in \,\{R,G,B\}}w_{C}\cdot C} , where, e.g., w R = 0.299 , w G = 0.587 , w B = 1 − ( w R + w G ) = 0.114. {\displaystyle w_{R}=0.299,\ w_{G}=0.587,\ w_{B}=1-(w_{R}+w_{G})=0.114.} === Spatial derivative calculation === Next, we are going to find the derivative with respect to x and the derivative with respect to y, I x ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{x}(x,y)} and I y ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{y}(x,y)} . This can be approximated by applying Sobel operators. === Structure tensor setup === With I x ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{x}(x,y)} , I y ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{y}(x,y)} , we can construct the structure tensor M {\displaystyle M} . === Harris response calculation === For x ≪ y {\displaystyle x\ll y} , one has x ⋅ y x + y = x 1 1 + x / y ≈ x . {\displaystyle {\tfrac {x\cdot y}{x+y}}=x{\tfrac {1}{1+x/y}}\approx x.} In this step, we compute the smallest eigenvalue of the structure tensor using that approximation: λ min ≈ λ 1 λ 2 ( λ 1 + λ 2 ) = det ( M ) tr ⁡ ( M ) {\displaystyle \lambda _{\min }\approx {\frac {\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}}{(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2})}}={\frac {\det(M)}{\operatorname {tr} (M)}}} with the trace t r ( M ) = m 11 + m 22 {\displaystyle \mathrm {tr} (M)=m_{11}+m_{22}} . Another commonly used Harris response calculation is shown as below, R = λ 1 λ 2 − k ( λ 1 + λ 2 ) 2 = det ( M ) − k tr ⁡ ( M ) 2 {\displaystyle R=\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}-k(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2})^{2}=\det(M)-k\operatorname {tr} (M)^{2}} where k {\displaystyle k} is an empirically determined constant; k ∈ [ 0.04 , 0.06 ] {\displaystyle k\in [0.04,0.06]} . === Non-maximum suppression === In order to pick up the optimal values to indicate corners, we find the local maxima as corners within the window which is a 3 by 3 filter. == Improvement == Sources: Harris-Laplace Corner Detector Differential Morphological Decomposition Based Corner Detector Multi-scale Bilateral Structure Tensor Based Corner Detector == Applications == Image Alignment, Stitching and Registration 2D Mosaics Creation 3D Scene Modeling and Reconstruction Motion Detection Object Recognition Image Indexing and Content-based Retrieval Video Tracking

  Read more →
• 

  Diffusion map

  Diffusion maps is a dimensionality reduction or feature extraction algorithm introduced by Coifman and Lafon which computes a family of embeddings of a data set into Euclidean space (often low-dimensional) whose coordinates can be computed from the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a diffusion operator on the data. The Euclidean distance between points in the embedded space is equal to the "diffusion distance" between probability distributions centered at those points. Different from linear dimensionality reduction methods such as principal component analysis (PCA), diffusion maps are part of the family of nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods which focus on discovering the underlying manifold that the data has been sampled from. By integrating local similarities at different scales, diffusion maps give a global description of the data-set. Compared with other methods, the diffusion map algorithm is robust to noise perturbation and computationally inexpensive. == Definition of diffusion maps == Following and , diffusion maps can be defined in four steps. === Connectivity === Diffusion maps exploit the relationship between heat diffusion and random walk Markov chain. The basic observation is that if we take a random walk on the data, walking to a nearby data-point is more likely than walking to another that is far away. Let ( X , A , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathcal {A}},\mu )} be a measure space, where X {\displaystyle X} is the data set and μ {\displaystyle \mu } represents the distribution of the points on X {\displaystyle X} . Based on this, the connectivity k {\displaystyle k} between two data points, x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} , can be defined as the probability of walking from x {\displaystyle x} to y {\displaystyle y} in one step of the random walk. Usually, this probability is specified in terms of a kernel function of the two points: k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:X\times X\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } . For example, the popular Gaussian kernel: k ( x , y ) = exp ⁡ ( − | | x − y | | 2 ϵ ) {\displaystyle k(x,y)=\exp \left(-{\frac {||x-y||^{2}}{\epsilon }}\right)} More generally, the kernel function has the following properties k ( x , y ) = k ( y , x ) {\displaystyle k(x,y)=k(y,x)} ( k {\displaystyle k} is symmetric) k ( x , y ) ≥ 0 ∀ x , y {\displaystyle k(x,y)\geq 0\,\,\forall x,y} ( k {\displaystyle k} is positivity preserving). The kernel constitutes the prior definition of the local geometry of the data-set. Since a given kernel will capture a specific feature of the data set, its choice should be guided by the application that one has in mind. This is a major difference with methods such as principal component analysis, where correlations between all data points are taken into account at once. Given ( X , k ) {\displaystyle (X,k)} , we can then construct a reversible discrete-time Markov chain on X {\displaystyle X} (a process known as the normalized graph Laplacian construction): d ( x ) = ∫ X k ( x , y ) d μ ( y ) {\displaystyle d(x)=\int _{X}k(x,y)d\mu (y)} and define: p ( x , y ) = k ( x , y ) d ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x,y)={\frac {k(x,y)}{d(x)}}} Although the new normalized kernel does not inherit the symmetric property, it does inherit the positivity-preserving property and gains a conservation property: ∫ X p ( x , y ) d μ ( y ) = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{X}p(x,y)d\mu (y)=1} === Diffusion process === From p ( x , y ) {\displaystyle p(x,y)} we can construct a transition matrix of a Markov chain ( M {\displaystyle M} ) on X {\displaystyle X} . In other words, p ( x , y ) {\displaystyle p(x,y)} represents the one-step transition probability from x {\displaystyle x} to y {\displaystyle y} , and M t {\displaystyle M^{t}} gives the t-step transition matrix. We define the diffusion matrix L {\displaystyle L} (it is also a version of graph Laplacian matrix) L i , j = k ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle L_{i,j}=k(x_{i},x_{j})\,} We then define the new kernel L i , j ( α ) = k ( α ) ( x i , x j ) = L i , j ( d ( x i ) d ( x j ) ) α {\displaystyle L_{i,j}^{(\alpha )}=k^{(\alpha )}(x_{i},x_{j})={\frac {L_{i,j}}{(d(x_{i})d(x_{j}))^{\alpha }}}\,} or equivalently, L ( α ) = D − α L D − α {\displaystyle L^{(\alpha )}=D^{-\alpha }LD^{-\alpha }\,} where D is a diagonal matrix and D i , i = ∑ j L i , j . {\displaystyle D_{i,i}=\sum _{j}L_{i,j}.} We apply the graph Laplacian normalization to this new kernel: M = ( D ( α ) ) − 1 L ( α ) , {\displaystyle M=({D}^{(\alpha )})^{-1}L^{(\alpha )},\,} where D ( α ) {\displaystyle D^{(\alpha )}} is a diagonal matrix and D i , i ( α ) = ∑ j L i , j ( α ) . {\displaystyle {D}_{i,i}^{(\alpha )}=\sum _{j}L_{i,j}^{(\alpha )}.} p ( x j , t | x i ) = M i , j t {\displaystyle p(x_{j},t|x_{i})=M_{i,j}^{t}\,} One of the main ideas of the diffusion framework is that running the chain forward in time (taking larger and larger powers of M {\displaystyle M} ) reveals the geometric structure of X {\displaystyle X} at larger and larger scales (the diffusion process). Specifically, the notion of a cluster in the data set is quantified as a region in which the probability of escaping this region is low (within a certain time t). Therefore, t not only serves as a time parameter, but it also has the dual role of scale parameter. The eigendecomposition of the matrix M t {\displaystyle M^{t}} yields M i , j t = ∑ l λ l t ψ l ( x i ) ϕ l ( x j ) {\displaystyle M_{i,j}^{t}=\sum _{l}\lambda _{l}^{t}\psi _{l}(x_{i})\phi _{l}(x_{j})\,} where { λ l } {\displaystyle \{\lambda _{l}\}} is the sequence of eigenvalues of M {\displaystyle M} and { ψ l } {\displaystyle \{\psi _{l}\}} and { ϕ l } {\displaystyle \{\phi _{l}\}} are the biorthogonal left and right eigenvectors respectively. Due to the spectrum decay of the eigenvalues, only a few terms are necessary to achieve a given relative accuracy in this sum. ==== Parameter α and the diffusion operator ==== The reason to introduce the normalization step involving α {\displaystyle \alpha } is to tune the influence of the data point density on the infinitesimal transition of the diffusion. In some applications, the sampling of the data is generally not related to the geometry of the manifold we are interested in describing. In this case, we can set α = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha =1} and the diffusion operator approximates the Laplace–Beltrami operator. We then recover the Riemannian geometry of the data set regardless of the distribution of the points. To describe the long-term behavior of the point distribution of a system of stochastic differential equations, we can use α = 0.5 {\displaystyle \alpha =0.5} and the resulting Markov chain approximates the Fokker–Planck diffusion. With α = 0 {\displaystyle \alpha =0} , it reduces to the classical graph Laplacian normalization. === Diffusion distance === The diffusion distance at time t {\displaystyle t} between two points can be measured as the similarity of two points in the observation space with the connectivity between them. It is given by D t ( x i , x j ) 2 = ∑ y ( p ( y , t | x i ) − p ( y , t | x j ) ) 2 ϕ 0 ( y ) {\displaystyle D_{t}(x_{i},x_{j})^{2}=\sum _{y}{\frac {(p(y,t|x_{i})-p(y,t|x_{j}))^{2}}{\phi _{0}(y)}}} where ϕ 0 ( y ) {\displaystyle \phi _{0}(y)} is the stationary distribution of the Markov chain, given by the first left eigenvector of M {\displaystyle M} . Explicitly: ϕ 0 ( y ) = d ( y ) ∑ z ∈ X d ( z ) {\displaystyle \phi _{0}(y)={\frac {d(y)}{\sum _{z\in X}d(z)}}} Intuitively, D t ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle D_{t}(x_{i},x_{j})} is small if there is a large number of short paths connecting x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} . There are several interesting features associated with the diffusion distance, based on our previous discussion that t {\displaystyle t} also serves as a scale parameter: Points are closer at a given scale (as specified by D t ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle D_{t}(x_{i},x_{j})} ) if they are highly connected in the graph, therefore emphasizing the concept of a cluster. This distance is robust to noise, since the distance between two points depends on all possible paths of length t {\displaystyle t} between the points. From a machine learning point of view, the distance takes into account all evidences linking x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} to x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} , allowing us to conclude that this distance is appropriate for the design of inference algorithms based on the majority of preponderance. === Diffusion process and low-dimensional embedding === The diffusion distance can be calculated using the eigenvectors by D t ( x i , x j ) 2 = ∑ l λ l 2 t ( ψ l ( x i ) − ψ l ( x j ) ) 2 {\displaystyle D_{t}(x_{i},x_{j})^{2}=\sum _{l}\lambda _{l}^{2t}(\psi _{l}(x_{i})-\psi _{l}(x_{j}))^{2}\,} So the eigenvectors can be used as a new set of coordinates for the data. The diffusion map is defined as: Ψ t ( x ) = ( λ 1 t ψ 1 ( x ) , λ 2 t ψ 2 ( x ) , … , λ k t ψ k ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \Psi _{t}(x)=(\lambda _{1}^{t}\psi _{1}(x),\lambda _{2}^{t}\psi _{2}(x),\ld

  Read more →
• 

  Learning classifier system

  Learning classifier systems, or LCS, are a paradigm of rule-based machine learning methods that combine a discovery component (e.g. typically a genetic algorithm in evolutionary computation) with a learning component (performing either supervised learning, reinforcement learning, or unsupervised learning). Learning classifier systems seek to identify a set of context-dependent rules that collectively store and apply knowledge in a piecewise manner in order to make predictions (e.g. behavior modeling, classification, data mining, regression, function approximation, or game strategy). This approach allows complex solution spaces to be broken up into smaller, simpler parts for the reinforcement learning that is inside artificial intelligence research. The founding concepts behind learning classifier systems came from attempts to model complex adaptive systems, using rule-based agents to form an artificial cognitive system (i.e. artificial intelligence). == Methodology == The architecture and components of a given learning classifier system can be quite variable. It is useful to think of an LCS as a machine consisting of several interacting components. Components may be added or removed, or existing components modified/exchanged to suit the demands of a given problem domain (like algorithmic building blocks) or to make the algorithm flexible enough to function in many different problem domains. As a result, the LCS paradigm can be flexibly applied to many problem domains that call for machine learning. The major divisions among LCS implementations are as follows: (1) Michigan-style architecture vs. Pittsburgh-style architecture, (2) reinforcement learning vs. supervised learning, (3) incremental learning vs. batch learning, (4) online learning vs. offline learning, (5) strength-based fitness vs. accuracy-based fitness, and (6) complete action mapping vs best action mapping. These divisions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, XCS, the best known and best studied LCS algorithm, is Michigan-style, was designed for reinforcement learning but can also perform supervised learning, applies incremental learning that can be either online or offline, applies accuracy-based fitness, and seeks to generate a complete action mapping. === Elements of a generic LCS algorithm === Keeping in mind that LCS is a paradigm for genetic-based machine learning rather than a specific method, the following outlines key elements of a generic, modern (i.e. post-XCS) LCS algorithm. For simplicity let us focus on Michigan-style architecture with supervised learning. See the illustrations on the right laying out the sequential steps involved in this type of generic LCS. ==== Environment ==== The environment is the source of data upon which an LCS learns. It can be an offline, finite training dataset (characteristic of a data mining, classification, or regression problem), or an online sequential stream of live training instances. Each training instance is assumed to include some number of features (also referred to as attributes, or independent variables), and a single endpoint of interest (also referred to as the class, action, phenotype, prediction, or dependent variable). Part of LCS learning can involve feature selection, therefore not all of the features in the training data need to be informative. The set of feature values of an instance is commonly referred to as the state. For simplicity let's assume an example problem domain with Boolean/binary features and a Boolean/binary class. For Michigan-style systems, one instance from the environment is trained on each learning cycle (i.e. incremental learning). Pittsburgh-style systems perform batch learning, where rule sets are evaluated in each iteration over much or all of the training data. ==== Rule/classifier/population ==== A rule is a context dependent relationship between state values and some prediction. Rules typically take the form of an {IF:THEN} expression, (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'action'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign'}). A critical concept in LCS and rule-based machine learning alike, is that an individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Think of a rule as a "local-model" of the solution space. Rules can be represented in many different ways to handle different data types (e.g. binary, discrete-valued, ordinal, continuous-valued). Given binary data LCS traditionally applies a ternary rule representation (i.e. rules can include either a 0, 1, or '#' for each feature in the data). The 'don't care' symbol (i.e. '#') serves as a wild card within a rule's condition allowing rules, and the system as a whole to generalize relationships between features and the target endpoint to be predicted. Consider the following rule (#1###0 ~ 1) (i.e. condition ~ action). This rule can be interpreted as: IF the second feature = 1 AND the sixth feature = 0 THEN the class prediction = 1. We would say that the second and sixth features were specified in this rule, while the others were generalized. This rule, and the corresponding prediction are only applicable to an instance when the condition of the rule is satisfied by the instance. This is more commonly referred to as matching. In Michigan-style LCS, each rule has its own fitness, as well as a number of other rule-parameters associated with it that can describe the number of copies of that rule that exist (i.e. the numerosity), the age of the rule, its accuracy, or the accuracy of its reward predictions, and other descriptive or experiential statistics. A rule along with its parameters is often referred to as a classifier. In Michigan-style systems, classifiers are contained within a population [P] that has a user defined maximum number of classifiers. Unlike most stochastic search algorithms (e.g. evolutionary algorithms), LCS populations start out empty (i.e. there is no need to randomly initialize a rule population). Classifiers will instead be initially introduced to the population with a covering mechanism. In any LCS, the trained model is a set of rules/classifiers, rather than any single rule/classifier. In Michigan-style LCS, the entire trained (and optionally, compacted) classifier population forms the prediction model. ==== Matching ==== One of the most critical and often time-consuming elements of an LCS is the matching process. The first step in an LCS learning cycle takes a single training instance from the environment and passes it to [P] where matching takes place. In step two, every rule in [P] is now compared to the training instance to see which rules match (i.e. are contextually relevant to the current instance). In step three, any matching rules are moved to a match set [M]. A rule matches a training instance if all feature values specified in the rule condition are equivalent to the corresponding feature value in the training instance. For example, assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), these rules would match: (###0## ~ 0), (00###1 ~ 0), (#01001 ~ 1), but these rules would not (1##### ~ 0), (000##1 ~ 0), (#0#1#0 ~ 1). Notice that in matching, the endpoint/action specified by the rule is not taken into consideration. As a result, the match set may contain classifiers that propose conflicting actions. In the fourth step, since we are performing supervised learning, [M] is divided into a correct set [C] and an incorrect set [I]. A matching rule goes into the correct set if it proposes the correct action (based on the known action of the training instance), otherwise it goes into [I]. In reinforcement learning LCS, an action set [A] would be formed here instead, since the correct action is not known. ==== Covering ==== At this point in the learning cycle, if no classifiers made it into either [M] or [C] (as would be the case when the population starts off empty), the covering mechanism is applied (fifth step). Covering is a form of online smart population initialization. Covering randomly generates a rule that matches the current training instance (and in the case of supervised learning, that rule is also generated with the correct action. Assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), covering might generate any of the following rules: (#0#0## ~ 0), (001001 ~ 0), (#010## ~ 0). Covering not only ensures that each learning cycle there is at least one correct, matching rule in [C], but that any rule initialized into the population will match at least one training instance. This prevents LCS from exploring the search space of rules that do not match any training instances. ==== Parameter updates/credit assignment/learning ==== In the sixth step, the rule parameters of any rule in [M] are updated to reflect the new experience gained from the current training instance. Depending on the LCS algorithm, a number of updates can take place at this step. For supervised learning, we can simply update the accuracy/error of a

  Read more →