AI Art Modifier

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

• 

  Software bot

  A software bot is a type of software agent in the service of software project management and software engineering. A software bot has an identity and potentially personified aspects in order to serve their stakeholders. Software bots often compose software services and provide an alternative user interface, which is sometimes, but not necessarily conversational. Software bots are typically used to execute tasks, suggest actions, engage in dialogue, and promote social and cultural aspects of a software project. The term bot is derived from robot. However, robots act in the physical world and software bots act only in digital spaces. Some software bots are designed and behave as chatbots, but not all chatbots are software bots. Discussions about the past and future of software bots show that software bots have been adopted for many years. == Usage == Software bots are used to support development activities, such as communication among software developers and automation of repetitive tasks. Software bots have been adopted by several communities related to software development, such as open-source communities on GitHub and Stack Overflow. GitHub bots have user accounts and can open, close, or comment on pull requests and issues. GitHub bots have been used to assign reviewers, ask contributors to sign the Contributor License Agreement, report continuous integration failures, review code and pull requests, welcome newcomers, run automated tests, merge pull requests, fix bugs and vulnerabilities, etc. The Slack tool includes an API for developing software bots. There are slack bots for keeping track of todo lists, coordinating standup meetings, and managing support tickets. The ChatBot company products further simplify the process of creating a custom Slack bot. On Wikipedia, Wikipedia bots automate a variety of tasks, such as creating stub articles, consistently updating the format of multiple articles, and so on. Bots like ClueBot NG are capable of recognizing vandalism and automatically remove disruptive content. == Taxonomies and Classification Frameworks == Lebeuf et al. provide a faceted taxonomy to characterize bots based on a literature review. It is composed of 3 main facets: (i) properties of the environment that the bot was created in; (ii) intrinsic properties of the bot itself; and (iii) the bot's interactions within its environment. They further detail the facets into sets of sub-facets under each of the main facets. Paikari and van der Hoek defined a set of dimensions to enable comparison of software bots, applied specifically to chatbots. It resulted in six dimensions: Type: the main purpose of the bot (information, collaboration, or automation) Direction of the "conversation" (input, output, or bi-directional) Guidance (human-mediated, or autonomous) Predictability (deterministic, or evolving) Interaction style (dull, alternate vocabulary, relationship-builder, human-like) Communication channel (text, voice, or both) Erlenhov et al. raised the question of the difference between a bot and simple automation, since much research done in the name of software bots uses the term bot to describe various different tools and sometimes things are "just" plain old development tools. After interviewing and surveying over 100 developers the authors found that not one, but three definitions dominated the community. They created three personas based on these definitions and the difference between what the three personas see as being a bot is mainly the association with a different set of human-like traits. The chat bot persona (Charlie) primarily thinks of bots as tools that communicates with the developer through a natural language interface (typically voice or chat), and caring little about what tasks the bot is used for or how it actually implements these tasks. The autonomous bot persona (Alex) thinks of bots as tools that work on their own (without requiring much input from a developer) on a task that would normally be done by a human. The smart bot persona (Sam) separates bots and plain old development tools through how smart (technically sophisticated) a tool is. Sam cares less about how the tool communicates, but more about if it is unusually good or adaptive at executing a task. The authors recommends that people doing research or writing about bots try to put their work in the context of one of the personas since the personas have different expectations and problems with the tools. == Example of notable bots == Dependabot and Renovatebot update software dependencies and detect vulnerabilities. (https://dependabot.com/) Probot is an organization that create and maintain bots for GitHub. The example bots using Probot are the following. Auto Assign (https://probot.github.io/apps/auto-assign/) license bot (https://probot.github.io/) Sentiment bot (https://probot.github.io/apps/sentiment-bot/) Untrivializer bot (https://probot.github.io/apps/untrivializer/) Refactoring-Bot (Refactoring-Bot): provides refactoring based on static code analysis Looks good to me bot (LGTM) is a Semmle product that inspects pull requests on GitHub for code style and unsafe code practices. == Issues and threats == Software bots may not be well accepted by humans. A study from the University of Antwerp has compared how developers active on Stack Overflow perceive answers generated by software bots. They find that developers perceive the quality of software bot-generated answers to be significantly worse if the identity of the software bot is made apparent. By contrast, answers from software bots with human-like identity were better received. In practice, when software bots are used on platforms like GitHub or Wikipedia, their username makes it clear that they are bots, e.g., DependaBot, RenovateBot, DatBot, SineBot. Bots may be subject to special rules. For instance, the GitHub terms of service does not allow 'bots' but accepts 'machine account', where a 'machine account' has two properties: 1) a human takes full responsibility of the bot's actions 2) it cannot create other accounts.

  Read more →
• 

  Vowpal Wabbit

  Vowpal Wabbit (VW) is an open-source fast online interactive machine learning system library and program developed originally at Yahoo! Research, and currently at Microsoft Research. It was started and is led by John Langford. Vowpal Wabbit's interactive learning support is particularly notable including Contextual Bandits, Active Learning, and forms of guided Reinforcement Learning. Vowpal Wabbit provides an efficient scalable out-of-core implementation with support for a number of machine learning reductions, importance weighting, and a selection of different loss functions and optimization algorithms. == Notable features == The VW program supports: Multiple supervised (and semi-supervised) learning problems: Classification (both binary and multi-class) Regression Active learning (partially labeled data) for both regression and classification Multiple learning algorithms (model-types / representations) OLS regression Matrix factorization (sparse matrix SVD) Single layer neural net (with user specified hidden layer node count) Searn (Search and Learn) Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) Stagewise polynomial approximation Recommend top-K out of N One-against-all (OAA) and cost-sensitive OAA reduction for multi-class Weighted all pairs Contextual-bandit (with multiple exploration/exploitation strategies) Multiple loss functions: squared error quantile hinge logistic poisson Multiple optimization algorithms Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) BFGS Conjugate gradient Regularization (L1 norm, L2 norm, & elastic net regularization) Flexible input - input features may be: Binary Numerical Categorical (via flexible feature-naming and the hash trick) Can deal with missing values/sparse-features Other features On the fly generation of feature interactions (quadratic and cubic) On the fly generation of N-grams with optional skips (useful for word/language data-sets) Automatic test-set holdout and early termination on multiple passes bootstrapping User settable online learning progress report + auditing of the model Hyperparameter optimization == Scalability == Vowpal wabbit has been used to learn a tera-feature (1012) data-set on 1000 nodes in one hour. Its scalability is aided by several factors: Out-of-core online learning: no need to load all data into memory The hashing trick: feature identities are converted to a weight index via a hash (uses 32-bit MurmurHash3) Exploiting multi-core CPUs: parsing of input and learning are done in separate threads. Compiled C++ code

  Read more →
• 

  Radial basis function kernel

  In machine learning, the radial basis function kernel, or RBF kernel, is a popular kernel function used in various kernelized learning algorithms. In particular, it is commonly used in support vector machine classification. The RBF kernel on two samples x , x ′ ∈ R k {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} \in \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , represented as feature vectors in some input space, is defined as K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 2 σ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}\right)} ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}} may be recognized as the squared Euclidean distance between the two feature vectors. σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a free parameter. An equivalent definition involves a parameter γ = 1 2 σ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \gamma ={\tfrac {1}{2\sigma ^{2}}}} : K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ⁡ ( − γ ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp(-\gamma \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2})} Since the value of the RBF kernel decreases with distance and ranges between zero (in the infinite-distance limit) and one (when x = x'), it has a ready interpretation as a similarity measure. The feature space of the kernel has an infinite number of dimensions; for σ = 1 {\displaystyle \sigma =1} , its expansion using the multinomial theorem is: exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ⁡ ( 2 2 x ⊤ x ′ − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ⁡ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) j j ! exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ∑ n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) x ′ 1 n 1 ⋯ x ′ k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)&=\exp \left({\frac {2}{2}}\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} -{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\exp \left(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} \right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} )^{j}}{j!}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }\quad \sum _{n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right){\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right){\frac {{x'}_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots {x'}_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\\[5pt]&=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \end{alignedat}}} φ ( x ) = exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) ( a ℓ 0 ( 0 ) , a 1 ( 1 ) , … , a ℓ 1 ( 1 ) , … , a 1 ( j ) , … , a ℓ j ( j ) , … ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\left(a_{\ell _{0}}^{(0)},a_{1}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{1}}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{1}^{(j)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{j}}^{(j)},\dots \right)} where ℓ j = ( k + j − 1 j ) {\displaystyle \ell _{j}={\tbinom {k+j-1}{j}}} , a ℓ ( j ) = x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! | n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j ∧ 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ ℓ j {\displaystyle a_{\ell }^{(j)}={\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\quad |\quad n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j\wedge 1\leq \ell \leq \ell _{j}} == Approximations == Because support vector machines and other models employing the kernel trick do not scale well to large numbers of training samples or large numbers of features in the input space, several approximations to the RBF kernel (and similar kernels) have been introduced. Typically, these take the form of a function z that maps a single vector to a vector of higher dimensionality, approximating the kernel: ⟨ z ( x ) , z ( x ′ ) ⟩ ≈ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ = K ( x , x ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle z(\mathbf {x} ),z(\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \approx \langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle =K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )} where φ {\displaystyle \textstyle \varphi } is the implicit mapping embedded in the RBF kernel. === Fourier random features === One way to construct such a z is to randomly sample from the Fourier transformation of the kernel φ ( x ) = 1 D [ cos ⁡ ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , … , cos ⁡ ⟨ w D , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ w D , x ⟩ ] T {\displaystyle \varphi (x)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {D}}}[\cos \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\ldots ,\cos \langle w_{D},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{D},x\rangle ]^{T}} where w 1 , . . . , w D {\displaystyle w_{1},...,w_{D}} are independent samples from the normal distribution N ( 0 , σ − 2 I ) {\displaystyle N(0,\sigma ^{-2}I)} . Theorem: E ⁡ [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = e ‖ x − y ‖ 2 / ( 2 σ 2 ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=e^{\|x-y\|^{2}/(2\sigma ^{2})}.} Proof: It suffices to prove the case of D = 1 {\displaystyle D=1} . Use the trigonometric identity cos ⁡ ( a − b ) = cos ⁡ ( a ) cos ⁡ ( b ) + sin ⁡ ( a ) sin ⁡ ( b ) {\displaystyle \cos(a-b)=\cos(a)\cos(b)+\sin(a)\sin(b)} , the spherical symmetry of Gaussian distribution, then evaluate the integral ∫ − ∞ ∞ cos ⁡ ( k x ) e − x 2 / 2 2 π d x = e − k 2 / 2 . {\displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\frac {\cos(kx)e^{-x^{2}/2}}{\sqrt {2\pi }}}dx=e^{-k^{2}/2}.} Theorem: Var ⁡ [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = O ( D − 1 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=O(D^{-1})} . (Appendix A.2). === Nyström method === Another approach uses the Nyström method to approximate the eigendecomposition of the Gram matrix K, using only a random sample of the training set.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic mapping (statistics)

  Semantic mapping (SM) is a statistical method for dimensionality reduction (the transformation of data from a high-dimensional space into a low-dimensional space). SM can be used in a set of multidimensional vectors of features to extract a few new features that preserves the main data characteristics. SM performs dimensionality reduction by clustering the original features in semantic clusters and combining features mapped in the same cluster to generate an extracted feature. Given a data set, this method constructs a projection matrix that can be used to map a data element from a high-dimensional space into a reduced dimensional space. SM can be applied in construction of text mining and information retrieval systems, as well as systems managing vectors of high dimensionality. SM is an alternative to random mapping, principal components analysis and latent semantic indexing methods.

  Read more →
• 

  Zesta

  Zesta is an online food ordering and delivery platform operating across the African region. Formerly known as Square Eats, the company rebranded to Zesta in 2025. Zesta connects customers with restaurants and stores, offering delivery services for food, groceries, parcel delivery and other essentials. == History == Zesta was originally founded as Square Eats in 2020 by twin brothers Henry Newman and Randall Newman when they were 21 years old. It was launched in Gaborone, Botswana, and quickly gained traction as a leading food delivery service in the country. The company halted operations and took a strategic decision to reinvent the business in 2022. In 2025, the company announced its rebranding to Zesta, highlighting its commitment to evolving beyond food delivery to become a super app. === COVID-19 initiative === During the COVID-19 pandemic, Zesta (then Square Eats) implemented measures to ensure safety and hygiene, including providing free gloves and hand sanitizer to drivers and introducing contactless delivery options. These efforts positioned the platform as a trusted service during the pandemic. == Service == Zesta facilitates delivery from a wide range of merchant partners via a smartphone app, available on iOS and Android platforms, or through its website. Customers can browse their favorite restaurants, place orders, and have meals delivered to their doorstep efficiently.

  Read more →
• 

  UIMA

  UIMA ( yoo-EE-mə), short for Unstructured Information Management Architecture, is an OASIS standard for content analytics, originally developed at IBM. It provides a component software architecture for the development, discovery, composition, and deployment of multi-modal analytics for the analysis of unstructured information and integration with search technologies. == Structure == The UIMA architecture can be thought of in four dimensions: It specifies component interfaces in an analytics pipeline. It describes a set of design patterns. It suggests two data representations: an in-memory representation of annotations for high-performance analytics and an XML representation of annotations for integration with remote web services. It suggests development roles allowing tools to be used by users with diverse skills. == Implementations and uses == Apache UIMA, a reference implementation of UIMA, is maintained by the Apache Software Foundation. UIMA is used in a number of software projects: IBM Research's Watson uses UIMA for analyzing unstructured data. The Clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (Apache cTAKES) is a UIMA-based system for information extraction from medical records. DKPro Core is a collection of reusable UIMA components for general-purpose natural language processing.

  Read more →
• 

  Latent and observable variables

  In statistics, latent variables (from Latin: present participle of lateo 'lie hidden') are variables that can only be inferred indirectly through a mathematical model from other observable variables that can be directly observed or measured. Such latent variable models are used in many disciplines, including engineering, medicine, ecology, physics, machine learning/artificial intelligence, natural language processing, bioinformatics, chemometrics, demography, economics, management, political science, psychology and the social sciences. Latent variables may correspond to aspects of physical reality. These could in principle be measured, but may not be for practical reasons. Among the earliest expressions of this idea is Francis Bacon's polemic the Novum Organum, itself a challenge to the more traditional logic expressed in Aristotle's Organon: But the latent process of which we speak, is far from being obvious to men’s minds, beset as they now are. For we mean not the measures, symptoms, or degrees of any process which can be exhibited in the bodies themselves, but simply a continued process, which, for the most part, escapes the observation of the senses. In this situation, the term hidden variables is commonly used, reflecting the fact that the variables are meaningful, but not observable. Other latent variables correspond to abstract concepts, like categories, behavioral or mental states, or data structures. The terms hypothetical variables or hypothetical constructs may be used in these situations. The use of latent variables can serve to reduce the dimensionality of data. Many observable variables can be aggregated in a model to represent an underlying concept, making it easier to understand the data. In this sense, they serve a function similar to that of scientific theories. At the same time, latent variables link observable "sub-symbolic" data in the real world to symbolic data in the modeled world. == Examples == === Psychology === Latent variables, as created by factor analytic methods, generally represent "shared" variance, or the degree to which variables "move" together. Variables that have no correlation cannot result in a latent construct based on the common factor model. The "Big Five personality traits" have been inferred using factor analysis. extraversion spatial ability wisdom: “Two of the more predominant means of assessing wisdom include wisdom-related performance and latent variable measures.” Spearman's g, or the general intelligence factor in psychometrics === Economics === Examples of latent variables from the field of economics include quality of life, business confidence, morale, happiness and conservatism: these are all variables which cannot be measured directly. However, by linking these latent variables to other, observable variables, the values of the latent variables can be inferred from measurements of the observable variables. Quality of life is a latent variable which cannot be measured directly, so observable variables are used to infer quality of life. Observable variables to measure quality of life include wealth, employment, environment, physical and mental health, education, recreation and leisure time, and social belonging. === Medicine === Latent-variable methodology is used in many branches of medicine. A class of problems that naturally lend themselves to latent variables approaches are longitudinal studies where the time scale (e.g. age of participant or time since study baseline) is not synchronized with the trait being studied. For such studies, an unobserved time scale that is synchronized with the trait being studied can be modeled as a transformation of the observed time scale using latent variables. Examples of this include disease progression modeling and modeling of growth (see box). == Inferring latent variables == There exists a range of different model classes and methodology that make use of latent variables and allow inference in the presence of latent variables. Models include: linear mixed-effects models and nonlinear mixed-effects models Hidden Markov models Factor analysis Item response theory Analysis and inference methods include: Principal component analysis Instrumented principal component analysis Partial least squares regression Latent semantic analysis and probabilistic latent semantic analysis EM algorithms Metropolis–Hastings algorithm === Bayesian algorithms and methods === Bayesian statistics is often used for inferring latent variables. Latent Dirichlet allocation The Chinese restaurant process is often used to provide a prior distribution over assignments of objects to latent categories. The Indian buffet process is often used to provide a prior distribution over assignments of latent binary features to objects.

  Read more →
• 

  Language identification in the limit

  Language identification in the limit is a formal model for inductive inference of formal languages, mainly by computers (see machine learning and induction of regular languages). It was introduced by E. Mark Gold in a technical report and a journal article with the same title. In this model, a teacher provides to a learner some presentation (i.e. a sequence of strings) of some formal language. The learning is seen as an infinite process. Each time the learner reads an element of the presentation, it should provide a representation (e.g. a formal grammar) for the language. Gold defines that a learner can identify in the limit a class of languages if, given any presentation of any language in the class, the learner will produce only a finite number of wrong representations, and then stick with the correct representation. However, the learner need not be able to announce its correctness; and the teacher might present a counterexample to any representation arbitrarily long after. Gold defined two types of presentations: Text (positive information): an enumeration of all strings the language consists of. Complete presentation (positive and negative information): an enumeration of all possible strings, each with a label indicating if the string belongs to the language or not. == Learnability == This model is an early attempt to formally capture the notion of learnability. Gold's journal article introduces for contrast the stronger models Finite identification (where the learner has to announce correctness after a finite number of steps), and Fixed-time identification (where correctness has to be reached after an apriori-specified number of steps). A weaker formal model of learnability is the Probably approximately correct learning (PAC) model, introduced by Leslie Valiant in 1984. == Examples == It is instructive to look at concrete examples (in the tables) of learning sessions the definition of identification in the limit speaks about. A fictitious session to learn a regular language L over the alphabet {a,b} from text presentation:In each step, the teacher gives a string belonging to L, and the learner answers a guess for L, encoded as a regular expression. In step 3, the learner's guess is not consistent with the strings seen so far; in step 4, the teacher gives a string repeatedly. After step 6, the learner sticks to the regular expression (ab+ba). If this happens to be a description of the language L the teacher has in mind, it is said that the learner has learned that language.If a computer program for the learner's role would exist that was able to successfully learn each regular language, that class of languages would be identifiable in the limit. Gold has shown that this is not the case. A particular learning algorithm always guessing L to be just the union of all strings seen so far:If L is a finite language, the learner will eventually guess it correctly, however, without being able to tell when. Although the guess didn't change during step 3 to 6, the learner couldn't be sure to be correct.Gold has shown that the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit, however, this class is neither finitely nor fixed-time identifiable. Learning from complete presentation by telling:In each step, the teacher gives a string and tells whether it belongs to L (green) or not (red, struck-out). Each possible string is eventually classified in this way by the teacher. Learning from complete presentation by request:The learner gives a query string, the teacher tells whether it belongs to L (yes) or not (no); the learner then gives a guess for L, followed by the next query string. In this example, the learner happens to query in each step just the same string as given by the teacher in example 3.In general, Gold has shown that each language class identifiable in the request-presentation setting is also identifiable in the telling-presentation setting, since the learner, instead of querying a string, just needs to wait until it is eventually given by the teacher. == Gold's theorem == More formally, a language L {\displaystyle L} is a nonempty set, and its elements are called sentences. a language family is a set of languages. a language-learning environment E {\displaystyle E} for a language L {\displaystyle L} is a stream of sentences from L {\displaystyle L} , such that each sentence in L {\displaystyle L} appears at least once. a language learner is a function f {\displaystyle f} that sends a list of sentences to a language. This is interpreted as saying that, after seeing sentences a 1 , a 2 . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2}...,a_{n}} in that order, the language learner guesses that the language that produces the sentences should be f ( a 1 , . . . , a n ) {\displaystyle f(a_{1},...,a_{n})} . Note that the learner is not obliged to be correct — it could very well guess a language that does not even contain a 1 , . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},...,a_{n}} . a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} in environment E = ( a 1 , a 2 , . . . ) {\displaystyle E=(a_{1},a_{2},...)} if the learner always guesses L {\displaystyle L} after seeing enough examples from the environment. a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} if it learns L {\displaystyle L} in any environment E {\displaystyle E} for L {\displaystyle L} . a language family is learnable if there exists a language learner that can learn all languages in the family. Notes: In the context of Gold's theorem, sentences need only be distinguishable. They need not be anything in particular, such as finite strings (as usual in formal linguistics). Learnability is not a concept for individual languages. Any individual language L {\displaystyle L} could be learned by a trivial learner that always guesses L {\displaystyle L} . Learnability is not a concept for individual learners. A language family is learnable if, and only if, there exists some learner that can learn the family. It does not matter how well the learner performs for learning languages outside the family. Gold's theorem is easily bypassed if negative examples are allowed. In particular, the language family { L 1 , L 2 , . . . , L ∞ } {\displaystyle \{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{\infty }\}} can be learned by a learner that always guesses L ∞ {\displaystyle L_{\infty }} until it receives the first negative example ¬ a n {\displaystyle \neg a_{n}} , where a n ∈ L n + 1 ∖ L n {\displaystyle a_{n}\in L_{n+1}\setminus L_{n}} , at which point it always guesses L n {\displaystyle L_{n}} . == Learnability characterization == Dana Angluin gave the characterizations of learnability from text (positive information) in a 1980 paper. If a learner is required to be effective, then an indexed class of recursive languages is learnable in the limit if there is an effective procedure that uniformly enumerates tell-tales for each language in the class (Condition 1). It is not hard to see that if an ideal learner (i.e., an arbitrary function) is allowed, then an indexed class of languages is learnable in the limit if each language in the class has a tell-tale (Condition 2). == Language classes learnable in the limit == The table shows which language classes are identifiable in the limit in which learning model. On the right-hand side, each language class is a superclass of all lower classes. Each learning model (i.e. type of presentation) can identify in the limit all classes below it. In particular, the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit by text presentation (cf. Example 2 above), while the class of regular languages is not. Pattern Languages, introduced by Dana Angluin in another 1980 paper, are also identifiable by normal text presentation; they are omitted in the table, since they are above the singleton and below the primitive recursive language class, but incomparable to the classes in between. == Sufficient conditions for learnability == Condition 1 in Angluin's paper is not always easy to verify. Therefore, people come up with various sufficient conditions for the learnability of a language class. See also Induction of regular languages for learnable subclasses of regular languages. === Finite thickness === A class of languages has finite thickness if every non-empty set of strings is contained in at most finitely many languages of the class. This is exactly Condition 3 in Angluin's paper. Angluin showed that if a class of recursive languages has finite thickness, then it is learnable in the limit. A class with finite thickness certainly satisfies MEF-condition and MFF-condition; in other words, finite thickness implies M-finite thickness. === Finite elasticity === A class of languages is said to have finite elasticity if for every infinite sequence of strings s 0 , s 1 , . . . {\displaystyle s_{0},s_{1},...} and every infinite sequence of languages in the class L 1 , L 2 , . . . {\displaystyle L_{1},L_{2},...} , there exists a finite number n such

  Read more →
• 

  Ugly duckling theorem

  The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.

  Read more →
• 

  Constructing skill trees

  Constructing skill trees (CST) is a hierarchical reinforcement learning algorithm which can build skill trees from a set of sample solution trajectories obtained from demonstration. CST uses an incremental MAP (maximum a posteriori) change point detection algorithm to segment each demonstration trajectory into skills and integrate the results into a skill tree. CST was introduced by George Konidaris, Scott Kuindersma, Andrew Barto and Roderic Grupen in 2010. == Algorithm == CST consists of mainly three parts;change point detection, alignment and merging. The main focus of CST is online change-point detection. The change-point detection algorithm is used to segment data into skills and uses the sum of discounted reward R t {\displaystyle R_{t}} as the target regression variable. Each skill is assigned an appropriate abstraction. A particle filter is used to control the computational complexity of CST. The change point detection algorithm is implemented as follows. The data for times t ∈ T {\displaystyle t\in T} and models Q with prior p ( q ∈ Q ) {\displaystyle p(q\in Q)} are given. The algorithm is assumed to be able to fit a segment from time j + 1 {\displaystyle j+1} to t using model q with the fit probability P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)_{}^{}} . A linear regression model with Gaussian noise is used to compute P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)} . The Gaussian noise prior has mean zero, and variance which follows I n v e r s e G a m m a ( v 2 , u 2 ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {InverseGamma} \left({\frac {v}{2}},{\frac {u}{2}}\right)} . The prior for each weight follows N o r m a l ( 0 , σ 2 δ ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Normal} (0,\sigma ^{2}\delta )} . The fit probability P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)} is computed by the following equation. P ( j , t , q ) = π − n 2 δ m | ( A + D ) − 1 | 1 2 u v 2 ( y + u ) u + v 2 Γ ( n + v 2 ) Γ ( v 2 ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)={\frac {\pi ^{-{\frac {n}{2}}}}{\delta ^{m}}}\left|(A+D)^{-1}\right|^{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {u^{\frac {v}{2}}}{(y+u)^{\frac {u+v}{2}}}}{\frac {\Gamma ({\frac {n+v}{2}})}{\Gamma ({\frac {v}{2}})}}} Then, CST compute the probability of the changepoint at time j with model q, P t ( j , q ) {\displaystyle P_{t}(j,q)} and P j MAP {\displaystyle P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}} using a Viterbi algorithm. P t ( j , q ) = ( 1 − G ( t − j − 1 ) ) P ( j , t , q ) p ( q ) P j MAP {\displaystyle P_{t}(j,q)=(1-G(t-j-1))P(j,t,q)p(q)P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}} P j MAP = max i , q P j ( i , q ) g ( j − i ) 1 − G ( j − i − 1 ) , ∀ j < t {\displaystyle P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}=\max _{i,q}{\frac {P_{j}(i,q)g(j-i)}{1-G(j-i-1)}},\forall j Read more →

• 

  Ilastik

  ilastik is free open source software for image classification and segmentation. No previous experience in image processing is required to run the software. Since 2018 ilastik is further developed and maintained by Anna Kreshuk's group at European Molecular Biology Laboratory. == Features == ilastik allows user to annotate an arbitrary number of classes in images with a mouse interface. Using these user annotations and the generic (nonlinear) image features, the user can train a random forest classifier. Trained ilastik classifiers can be applied new data not included in the training set in ilastik via its batch processing functionality, or without using the graphical user interface, in headless mode. ilastik can be integrated into various related tools: Pre-trained workflows can be executed directly from ImageJ/Fiji using the ilastik-ImageJ plugin. Pre-trained ilastik Pixel Classification workflows can be run directly in Python with the ilastik Python package, which is available via conda. ilastik has a CellProfiler module to use ilastik classifiers to process images within a CellProfiler framework. == History == ilastik was first released in 2011 by scientists at the Heidelberg Collaboratory for Image Processing (HCI), University of Heidelberg. == Application == The Interactive Learning and Segmentation Toolkit Carving Cell classification and neuron classification Synapse detection Cell tracking Neural Network Classification == Resources == ilastik project is hosted on GitHub. It is a collaborative project, any contributions such as comments, bug reports, bug fixes or code contributions are welcome. The ilastik team can be contacted for user support on the image.sc forum.

  Read more →
• 

  Curriculum learning

  Curriculum learning is a technique in machine learning in which a model is trained on examples of increasing difficulty, where the definition of "difficulty" may be provided externally or discovered as part of the training process. This is intended to attain good performance more quickly, or to converge to a better local optimum if the global optimum is not found. == Approach == Most generally, curriculum learning is the technique of successively increasing the difficulty of examples in the training set that is presented to a model over multiple training iterations. This can produce better results than exposing the model to the full training set immediately under some circumstances; most typically, when the model is able to learn general principles from easier examples, and then gradually incorporate more complex and nuanced information as harder examples are introduced, such as edge cases. This has been shown to work in many domains, most likely as a form of regularization. There are several major variations in how the technique is applied: A concept of "difficulty" must be defined. This may come from human annotation or an external heuristic; for example in language modeling, shorter sentences might be classified as easier than longer ones. Another approach is to use the performance of another model, with examples accurately predicted by that model being classified as easier (providing a connection to boosting). Difficulty can be increased steadily or in distinct epochs, and in a deterministic schedule or according to a probability distribution. This may also be moderated by a requirement for diversity at each stage, in cases where easier examples are likely to be disproportionately similar to each other. Applications must also decide the schedule for increasing the difficulty. Simple approaches may use a fixed schedule, such as training on easy examples for half of the available iterations and then all examples for the second half. Other approaches use self-paced learning to increase the difficulty in proportion to the performance of the model on the current set. Since curriculum learning only concerns the selection and ordering of training data, it can be combined with many other techniques in machine learning. The success of the method assumes that a model trained for an easier version of the problem can generalize to harder versions, so it can be seen as a form of transfer learning. Some authors also consider curriculum learning to include other forms of progressively increasing complexity, such as increasing the number of model parameters. It is frequently combined with reinforcement learning, such as learning a simplified version of a game first. Some domains have shown success with anti-curriculum learning: training on the most difficult examples first. One example is the ACCAN method for speech recognition, which trains on the examples with the lowest signal-to-noise ratio first. == History == The term "curriculum learning" was introduced by Yoshua Bengio et al in 2009, with reference to the psychological technique of shaping in animals and structured education for humans: beginning with the simplest concepts and then building on them. The authors also note that the application of this technique in machine learning has its roots in the early study of neural networks such as Jeffrey Elman's 1993 paper Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Bengio et al showed good results for problems in image classification, such as identifying geometric shapes with progressively more complex forms, and language modeling, such as training with a gradually expanding vocabulary. They conclude that, for curriculum strategies, "their beneficial effect is most pronounced on the test set", suggesting good generalization. The technique has since been applied to many other domains: Natural language processing: Part-of-speech tagging Intent detection Sentiment analysis Machine translation Speech recognition Language model pre-training Image recognition: Facial recognition Object detection Reinforcement learning: Game-playing Graph learning Matrix factorization

  Read more →
• 

  Image subtraction

  Image subtraction or pixel subtraction or difference imaging is an image processing technique whereby the digital numeric value of one pixel or whole image is subtracted from another image, and a new image generated from the result. This is primarily done for one of two reasons – levelling uneven sections of an image such as half an image having a shadow on it, or detecting changes between two images. This method can show things in the image that have changed position, brightness, color, or shape. For this technique to work, the two images must first be spatially aligned to match features between them, and their photometric values and point spread functions must be made compatible, either by careful calibration, or by post-processing (using color mapping). The complexity of the pre-processing needed before differencing varies with the type of image, but is essential to ensure good subtraction of static features. This is commonly used in fields such as time-domain astronomy (known primarily as difference imaging) to find objects that fluctuate in brightness or move. In automated searches for asteroids or Kuiper belt objects, the target moves and will be in one place in one image, and in another place in a reference image made an hour or day later. Thus, image processing algorithms can make the fixed stars in the background disappear, leaving only the target. Distinct families of astronomical image subtraction techniques have emerged, operating in both image space or frequency space, with distinct trade-offs in both quality of subtraction and computational cost. These algorithms lie at the heart of almost all modern (and upcoming) transient surveys, and can enable the detection of even faint supernovae embedded in bright galaxies. Nevertheless, in astronomical imaging, significant 'residuals' remain around bright, complex sources, necessitating further algorithmic steps to identify candidates (known as real-bogus classification) The Hutchinson metric can be used to "measure of the discrepancy between two images for use in fractal image processing".

  Read more →
• 

  Sharpness aware minimization

  Sharpness Aware Minimization (SAM) is an optimization algorithm used in machine learning that aims to improve model generalization. The method seeks to find model parameters that are located in regions of the loss landscape with uniformly low loss values, rather than parameters that only achieve a minimal loss value at a single point. This approach is described as finding "flat" minima instead of "sharp" ones. The rationale is that models trained this way are less sensitive to variations between training and test data, which can lead to better performance on unseen data. The algorithm was introduced in a 2020 paper by a team of researchers including Pierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, and Behnam Neyshabur. == Underlying Principle == SAM modifies the standard training objective by minimizing a "sharpness-aware" loss. This is formulated as a minimax problem where the inner objective seeks to find the highest loss value in the immediate neighborhood of the current model weights, and the outer objective minimizes this value: min w max ‖ ϵ ‖ p ≤ ρ L train ( w + ϵ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{w}\max _{\|\epsilon \|_{p}\leq \rho }L_{\text{train}}(w+\epsilon )+\lambda \|w\|_{2}^{2}} In this formulation: w {\displaystyle w} represents the model's parameters (weights). L train {\displaystyle L_{\text{train}}} is the loss calculated on the training data. ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is a perturbation applied to the weights. ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is a hyperparameter that defines the radius of the neighborhood (an L p {\displaystyle L_{p}} ball) to search for the highest loss. An optional L2 regularization term, scaled by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , can be included. A direct solution to the inner maximization problem is computationally expensive. SAM approximates it by taking a single gradient ascent step to find the perturbation ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This is calculated as: ϵ ( w ) = ρ ∇ L train ( w ) ‖ ∇ L train ( w ) ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon (w)=\rho {\frac {\nabla L_{\text{train}}(w)}{\|\nabla L_{\text{train}}(w)\|_{2}}}} The optimization process for each training step involves two stages. First, an "ascent step" computes a perturbed set of weights, w adv = w + ϵ ( w ) {\displaystyle w_{\text{adv}}=w+\epsilon (w)} , by moving towards the direction of the highest local loss. Second, a "descent step" updates the original weights w {\displaystyle w} using the gradient calculated at these perturbed weights, ∇ L train ( w adv ) {\displaystyle \nabla L_{\text{train}}(w_{\text{adv}})} . This update is typically performed using a standard optimizer like SGD or Adam. == Application and Performance == SAM has been applied in various machine learning contexts, primarily in computer vision. Research has shown it can improve generalization performance in models such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs) on image datasets including ImageNet, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100. The algorithm has also been found to be effective in training models with noisy labels, where it performs comparably to methods designed specifically for this problem. Some studies indicate that SAM and its variants can improve out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, which is a model's ability to perform well on data from distributions not seen during training. Other areas where it has been applied include gradual domain adaptation and mitigating overfitting in scenarios with repeated exposure to training examples. == Limitations == A primary limitation of SAM is its computational cost. By requiring two gradient computations (one for the ascent and one for the descent) per optimization step, it approximately doubles the training time compared to standard optimizers. The theoretical convergence properties of SAM are still under investigation. Some research suggests that with a constant step size, SAM may not converge to a stationary point. The accuracy of the single gradient step approximation for finding the worst-case perturbation may also decrease during the training process. The effectiveness of SAM can also be domain-dependent. While it has shown benefits for computer vision tasks, its impact on other areas, such as GPT-style language models where each training example is seen only once, has been reported as limited in some studies. Furthermore, while SAM seeks flat minima, some research suggests that not all flat minima necessarily lead to good generalization. The algorithm also introduces the neighborhood size ρ {\displaystyle \rho } as a new hyperparameter, which requires tuning. == Research, Variants, and Enhancements == Active research on SAM focuses on reducing its computational overhead and improving its performance. Several variants have been proposed to make the algorithm more efficient. These include methods that attempt to parallelize the two gradient computations, apply the perturbation to only a subset of parameters, or reduce the number of computation steps required. Other approaches use historical gradient information or apply SAM steps intermittently to lower the computational burden. To improve performance and robustness, variants have been developed that adapt the neighborhood size based on model parameter scales (Adaptive SAM or ASAM) or incorporate information about the curvature of the loss landscape (Curvature Regularized SAM or CR-SAM). Other research explores refining the perturbation step by focusing on specific components of the gradient or combining SAM with techniques like random smoothing. Theoretical work continues to analyze the algorithm's behavior, including its implicit bias towards flatter minima and the development of broader frameworks for sharpness-aware optimization that use different measures of sharpness.

  Read more →
• 

  Junction tree algorithm

  The junction tree algorithm (also known as 'Clique Tree') is a method used in machine learning to extract marginalization in general graphs. In essence, it entails performing belief propagation on a modified graph called a junction tree. The graph is called a tree because it branches into different sections of data; nodes of variables are the branches. The basic premise is to eliminate cycles by clustering them into single nodes. Multiple extensive classes of queries can be compiled at the same time into larger structures of data. There are different algorithms to meet specific needs and for what needs to be calculated. Inference algorithms gather new developments in the data and calculate it based on the new information provided. == Junction tree algorithm == === Hugin algorithm === If the graph is directed then moralize it to make it un-directed. Introduce the evidence. Triangulate the graph to make it chordal. Construct a junction tree from the triangulated graph (we will call the vertices of the junction tree "supernodes"). Propagate the probabilities along the junction tree (via belief propagation) Note that this last step is inefficient for graphs of large treewidth. Computing the messages to pass between supernodes involves doing exact marginalization over the variables in both supernodes. Performing this algorithm for a graph with treewidth k will thus have at least one computation which takes time exponential in k. It is a message passing algorithm. The Hugin algorithm takes fewer computations to find a solution compared to Shafer-Shenoy. === Shafer-Shenoy algorithm === Computed recursively Multiple recursions of the Shafer-Shenoy algorithm results in Hugin algorithm Found by the message passing equation Separator potentials are not stored The Shafer-Shenoy algorithm is the sum product of a junction tree. It is used because it runs programs and queries more efficiently than the Hugin algorithm. The algorithm makes calculations for conditionals for belief functions possible. Joint distributions are needed to make local computations happen. === Underlying theory === The first step concerns only Bayesian networks, and is a procedure to turn a directed graph into an undirected one. We do this because it allows for the universal applicability of the algorithm, regardless of direction. The second step is setting variables to their observed value. This is usually needed when we want to calculate conditional probabilities, so we fix the value of the random variables we condition on. Those variables are also said to be clamped to their particular value. The third step is to ensure that graphs are made chordal if they aren't already chordal. This is the first essential step of the algorithm. It makes use of the following theorem: Theorem: For an undirected graph, G, the following properties are equivalent: Graph G is triangulated. The clique graph of G has a junction tree. There is an elimination ordering for G that does not lead to any added edges. Thus, by triangulating a graph, we make sure that the corresponding junction tree exists. A usual way to do this, is to decide an elimination order for its nodes, and then run the Variable elimination algorithm. The variable elimination algorithm states that the algorithm must be run each time there is a different query. This will result to adding more edges to the initial graph, in such a way that the output will be a chordal graph. All chordal graphs have a junction tree. The next step is to construct the junction tree. To do so, we use the graph from the previous step, and form its corresponding clique graph. Now the next theorem gives us a way to find a junction tree: Theorem: Given a triangulated graph, weight the edges of the clique graph by their cardinality, |A∩B|, of the intersection of the adjacent cliques A and B. Then any maximum-weight spanning tree of the clique graph is a junction tree. So, to construct a junction tree we just have to extract a maximum weight spanning tree out of the clique graph. This can be efficiently done by, for example, modifying Kruskal's algorithm. The last step is to apply belief propagation to the obtained junction tree. Usage: A junction tree graph is used to visualize the probabilities of the problem. The tree can become a binary tree to form the actual building of the tree. A specific use could be found in auto encoders, which combine the graph and a passing network on a large scale automatically. === Inference Algorithms === Loopy belief propagation: A different method of interpreting complex graphs. The loopy belief propagation is used when an approximate solution is needed instead of the exact solution. It is an approximate inference. Cutset conditioning: Used with smaller sets of variables. Cutset conditioning allows for simpler graphs that are easier to read but are not exact.

  Read more →