AI Assistant Splunk

AI Assistant Splunk — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  YaDICs

  YaDICs is a program written to perform digital image correlation on 2D and 3D tomographic images. The program was designed to be both modular, by its plugin strategy and efficient, by it multithreading strategy. It incorporates different transformations (Global, Elastic, Local), optimizing strategy (Gauss-Newton, Steepest descent), Global and/or local shape functions (Rigid-body motions, homogeneous dilatations, flexural and Brazilian test models)... == Theoretical background == === Context === In solid mechanics, digital image correlation is a tool that allows to identify the displacement field to register a reference image (called herein fixed image) to images during an experiment (mobile image). For example, it is possible to observe the face of a specimen with a painted speckle on it in order to determine its displacement fields during a tensile test. Before the appearance of such methods, researchers usually used strain gauges to measure the mechanical state of the material but strain gauges only measure the strain on a point and don't allow to understand material with an heterogeneous behavior. One can obtain a full in plane strain tensor by derivation of the displacement fields. Many methods are based upon the optical flow. In fluid mechanics a similar method is used, called Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV); the algorithms are similar to those of DIC but it is impossible to ensure that the optical flow is conserved so a vast majority of the software used the normalized cross correlation metric. In mechanics the displacement or velocity fields are the only concern, registering images is just a side effect. There is another process called image registration using the same algorithms (on monomodal images) but where the goal is to register images and thereby identifying the displacement field is just a side effect. YaDICs uses the general principle of image registration with a particular attention to the displacement fields basis. === Image registration principle === YaDICs can be explained using the classical image registration framework: === Image registration general scheme === The common idea of image registration and digital image correlation is to find the transformation between a fixed image and a moving one for a given metric using an optimization scheme. While there are many methods to achieve such a goal, Yadics focuses on registering images with the same modality. The idea behind the creation of this software is to be able to process data that comes from a μ-tomograph; i.e.: data cube over 10003 voxels. With such a size it is not possible to use naive approach usually used in a two-dimensional context. In order to get sufficient performances OpenMP parallelism is used and data are not globally stored in memory. As an extensive description of the different algorithms is given in. === Sampling === Contrary to image registration, Digital Image Correlation targets the transformation, one wants to extracted the most accurate transformation from the two images and not just match the images. Yadics uses the whole image as a sampling grid: it is thus a total sampling. === Interpolator === It is possible to choose between bilinear interpolation and bicubic interpolation for the grey level evaluation at non integer coordinates. The bi-cubic interpolation is the recommended one. === Metrics === ==== Sum of squared differences (SSD) ==== The SSD is also known as mean squared error. The equation below defines the SSD metric: S S D ( μ , I F , I M ) = 1 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) 2 , {\displaystyle SSD(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})={\dfrac {1}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right)^{2},} where I F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I_{F}}}} is the fixed image, I M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I_{M}}}} the moving one, Ω F {\displaystyle \Omega _{F}} the integration area | Ω F | {\displaystyle \left|\Omega _{F}\right|} the number of pi(vo)xels (cardinal) and T μ {\displaystyle {T}_{\mu }} the transformation parametrized by μ The transformation can be written as: T μ ( x ) = x + { Φ ( x ) } t { μ } . {\displaystyle T_{\mu }(x)=x+\left\{\Phi (x)\right\}^{t}\left\{\mu \right\}.} This metric is the main one used in the YaDICs as it works well with same modality images. One has to find the minimum of this metric ==== Normalized cross-correlation ==== The normalized cross-correlation (NCC) is used when one cannot assure the optical flow conservation; it happens in case of change of lighting or if particles disappear from the scene can occur in particle images velocimetry (PIV). The NCC is defined by: N C C ( μ , I F , I M ) = ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I F ¯ ) ( I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) − I M ¯ ) ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I F ¯ ) 2 ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) − I M ¯ ) 2 , {\displaystyle NCC(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})={\dfrac {\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}\right)\left({\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}\right)}{\sqrt {\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}\right)^{2}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}\right)^{2}}}},} where I F ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}} and I M ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}} are the mean values of the fixed and mobile images. This metric is only used to find local translation in Yadics. This metric with translation transform can be solved using cross-correlation methods, which are non iterative and can be accelerated using Fast Fourier Transform . === Classification of transformations === There are three categories of parametrization: elastic, global and local transformation. The elastic transformations respect the partition of unity, there are no holes created or surfaces counted several times. This is commonly used in Image Registration by the use of B-Spline functions and in solid mechanics with finite element basis. The global transformations are defined on the whole picture using rigid body or affine transformation (which is equivalent to homogeneous strain transformation). More complex transformations can be defined such as mechanically based one. These transformations have been used for stress intensity factor identification by and for rod strain by. The local transformation can be considered as the same global transformation defined on several Zone Of Interest (ZOI) of the fixed image. ==== Global ==== Several global transforms have been implemented: Rigid and homogeneous (Tx,Ty,Rz in 2D; Tx,Ty,Tz,Rx,Ry,Rz,Exx,Eyy,Ezz,Eyz,Exz,Exy in 3D) Brazilian (Only in 2D), Dynamic Flexion, ==== Elastic ==== First-order quadrangular finite elements Q4P1 are used in Yadics. ===== Local ===== Every global transform can be used on a local mesh. === Optimization === The YaDICs optimization process follows a gradient descent scheme. The first step is to compute the gradient of the metric regarding the transform parameters ∂ S S D ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ = 2 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) ∂ I M ( T μ ( x i ) ∂ μ = 2 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) ( ∂ T μ ( x i ) ∂ μ ) t ∂ I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ∂ x {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lcl}{\dfrac {\partial SSD(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}&=&{\dfrac {2}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right){\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i})}{\partial \mu }}\\&=&{\dfrac {2}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right)\left({\dfrac {\partial {T}_{\mu }(x_{i})}{\partial \mu }}\right)^{t}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))}{\partial x}}\\\end{array}}} ==== Gradient method ==== Once the metric gradient has been computed, one has to find an optimization strategy The gradient method principle is explained below: μ k + 1 = μ k + α k d k {\displaystyle \mu _{k+1}=\mu _{k}+\alpha _{k}d_{k}} The gradient step can be constant or updated at every iteration. d k = − γ k ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ {\displaystyle d_{k}=-\gamma _{k}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}} , γ k {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}} allows one to choose between the following methods : γ k {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}} ⟹ {\displaystyle \Longrightarrow } steepest descent, γ k = [ ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ t ] − 1 {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}=\left[{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}^{t}\right]^{-1}} ⟹ {\displaystyle \Longrightarrow } Gauss-Newto

  Read more →
• 

  Polynomial kernel

  In machine learning, the polynomial kernel is a kernel function commonly used with support vector machines (SVMs) and other kernelized models, that represents the similarity of vectors (training samples) in a feature space over polynomials of the original variables, allowing learning of non-linear models. Intuitively, the polynomial kernel looks not only at the given features of input samples to determine their similarity, but also combinations of these. In the context of regression analysis, such combinations are known as interaction features. The (implicit) feature space of a polynomial kernel is equivalent to that of polynomial regression, but without the combinatorial blowup in the number of parameters to be learned. When the input features are binary-valued (booleans), then the features correspond to logical conjunctions of input features. == Definition == For degree-d polynomials, the polynomial kernel is defined as K ( x , y ) = ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=(\mathbf {x} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {y} +c)^{d}} where x and y are vectors of size n in the input space, i.e. vectors of features computed from training or test samples and c ≥ 0 is a free parameter trading off the influence of higher-order versus lower-order terms in the polynomial. When c = 0, the kernel is called homogeneous. (A further generalized polykernel divides xTy by a user-specified scalar parameter a.) As a kernel, K corresponds to an inner product in a feature space based on some mapping φ: K ( x , y ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\rangle } The nature of φ can be seen from an example. Let d = 2, so we get the special case of the quadratic kernel. After using the multinomial theorem (twice—the outermost application is the binomial theorem) and regrouping, K ( x , y ) = ( ∑ i = 1 n x i y i + c ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( x i 2 ) ( y i 2 ) + ∑ i = 2 n ∑ j = 1 i − 1 ( 2 x i x j ) ( 2 y i y j ) + ∑ i = 1 n ( 2 c x i ) ( 2 c y i ) + c 2 {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}y_{i}+c\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(x_{i}^{2}\right)\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)+\sum _{i=2}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{i-1}\left({\sqrt {2}}x_{i}x_{j}\right)\left({\sqrt {2}}y_{i}y_{j}\right)+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\sqrt {2c}}x_{i}\right)\left({\sqrt {2c}}y_{i}\right)+c^{2}} From this it follows that the feature map is given by: φ ( x ) = ( x n 2 , … , x 1 2 , 2 x n x n − 1 , … , 2 x n x 1 , 2 x n − 1 x n − 2 , … , 2 x n − 1 x 1 , … , 2 x 2 x 1 , 2 c x n , … , 2 c x 1 , c ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=\left(x_{n}^{2},\ldots ,x_{1}^{2},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{n-1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{1},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{n-2},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{2}x_{1},{\sqrt {2c}}x_{n},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2c}}x_{1},c\right)} generalizing for ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle \left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}} , where x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , y ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and applying the multinomial theorem: ( x T y + c ) d = ∑ j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + 1 = d d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! y 1 j 1 ⋯ y n j n c j n + 1 = φ ( x ) T φ ( y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}&=\sum _{j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n+1}=d}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}y_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots y_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\\&=\varphi (\mathbf {x} )^{T}\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\end{alignedat}}} The last summation has l d = ( n + d d ) {\displaystyle l_{d}={\tbinom {n+d}{d}}} elements, so that: φ ( x ) = ( a 1 , … , a l , … , a l d ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\left(a_{1},\dots ,a_{l},\dots ,a_{l_{d}}\right)} where l = ( j 1 , j 2 , . . . , j n , j n + 1 ) {\displaystyle l=(j_{1},j_{2},...,j_{n},j_{n+1})} and a l = d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 | j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + j n + 1 = d {\displaystyle a_{l}={\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\quad |\quad j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n}+j_{n+1}=d} == Practical use == Although the RBF kernel is more popular in SVM classification than the polynomial kernel, the latter is quite popular in natural language processing (NLP). The most common degree is d = 2 (quadratic), since larger degrees tend to overfit on NLP problems. Various ways of computing the polynomial kernel (both exact and approximate) have been devised as alternatives to the usual non-linear SVM training algorithms, including: full expansion of the kernel prior to training/testing with a linear SVM, i.e. full computation of the mapping φ as in polynomial regression; basket mining (using a variant of the apriori algorithm) for the most commonly occurring feature conjunctions in a training set to produce an approximate expansion; inverted indexing of support vectors. One problem with the polynomial kernel is that it may suffer from numerical instability: when xTy + c < 1, K(x, y) = (xTy + c)d tends to zero with increasing d, whereas when xTy + c > 1, K(x, y) tends to infinity.

  Read more →
• 

  LPBoost

  Linear Programming Boosting (LPBoost) is a supervised classifier from the boosting family of classifiers. LPBoost maximizes a margin between training samples of different classes, and thus also belongs to the class of margin classifier algorithms. Consider a classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } , {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\},} which classifies samples from a space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} into one of two classes, labelled 1 and -1, respectively. LPBoost is an algorithm for learning such a classification function, given a set of training examples with known class labels. LPBoost is a machine learning technique especially suited for joint classification and feature selection in structured domains. == LPBoost overview == As in all boosting classifiers, the final classification function is of the form f ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 J α j h j ( x ) , {\displaystyle f({\boldsymbol {x}})=\sum _{j=1}^{J}\alpha _{j}h_{j}({\boldsymbol {x}}),} where α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} are non-negative weightings for weak classifiers h j : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h_{j}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} . Each individual weak classifier h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} may be just a little bit better than random, but the resulting linear combination of many weak classifiers can perform very well. LPBoost constructs f {\displaystyle f} by starting with an empty set of weak classifiers. Iteratively, a single weak classifier to add to the set of considered weak classifiers is selected, added and all the weights α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} for the current set of weak classifiers are adjusted. This is repeated until no weak classifiers to add remain. The property that all classifier weights are adjusted in each iteration is known as totally-corrective property. Early boosting methods, such as AdaBoost do not have this property and converge slower. == Linear program == More generally, let H = { h ( ⋅ ; ω ) | ω ∈ Ω } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}=\{h(\cdot ;\omega )|\omega \in \Omega \}} be the possibly infinite set of weak classifiers, also termed hypotheses. One way to write down the problem LPBoost solves is as a linear program with infinitely many variables. The primal linear program of LPBoost, optimizing over the non-negative weight vector α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} , the non-negative vector ξ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}} of slack variables and the margin ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is the following. min α , ξ , ρ − ρ + D ∑ n = 1 ℓ ξ n sb.t. ∑ ω ∈ Ω y n α ω h ( x n ; ω ) + ξ n ≥ ρ , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ ω ∈ Ω α ω = 1 , ξ n ≥ 0 , n = 1 , … , ℓ , α ω ≥ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , ρ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\alpha }},{\boldsymbol {\xi }},\rho }{\min }}&-\rho +D\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\xi _{n}\\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }y_{n}\alpha _{\omega }h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )+\xi _{n}\geq \rho ,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }\alpha _{\omega }=1,\\&\xi _{n}\geq 0,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\alpha _{\omega }\geq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&\rho \in {\mathbb {R} }.\end{array}}} Note the effects of slack variables ξ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}\geq 0} : their one-norm is penalized in the objective function by a constant factor D {\displaystyle D} , which—if small enough—always leads to a primal feasible linear program. Here we adopted the notation of a parameter space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , such that for a choice ω ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega \in \Omega } the weak classifier h ( ⋅ ; ω ) : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ):{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} is uniquely defined. When the above linear program was first written down in early publications about boosting methods it was disregarded as intractable due to the large number of variables α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} . Only later it was discovered that such linear programs can indeed be solved efficiently using the classic technique of column generation. === Column generation for LPBoost === In a linear program a column corresponds to a primal variable. Column generation is a technique to solve large linear programs. It typically works in a restricted problem, dealing only with a subset of variables. By generating primal variables iteratively and on-demand, eventually the original unrestricted problem with all variables is recovered. By cleverly choosing the columns to generate the problem can be solved such that while still guaranteeing the obtained solution to be optimal for the original full problem, only a small fraction of columns has to be created. ==== LPBoost dual problem ==== Columns in the primal linear program corresponds to rows in the dual linear program. The equivalent dual linear program of LPBoost is the following linear program. max λ , γ γ sb.t. ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n + γ ≤ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , 0 ≤ λ n ≤ D , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ n = 1 ℓ λ n = 1 , γ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\lambda }},\gamma }{\max }}&\gamma \\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&0\leq \lambda _{n}\leq D,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\lambda _{n}=1,\\&\gamma \in \mathbb {R} .\end{array}}} For linear programs the optimal value of the primal and dual problem are equal. For the above primal and dual problems, the optimal value is equal to the negative 'soft margin'. The soft margin is the size of the margin separating positive from negative training instances minus positive slack variables that carry penalties for margin-violating samples. Thus, the soft margin may be positive although not all samples are linearly separated by the classification function. The latter is called the 'hard margin' or 'realized margin'. ==== Convergence criterion ==== Consider a subset of the satisfied constraints in the dual problem. For any finite subset we can solve the linear program and thus satisfy all constraints. If we could prove that of all the constraints which we did not add to the dual problem no single constraint is violated, we would have proven that solving our restricted problem is equivalent to solving the original problem. More formally, let γ ∗ {\displaystyle \gamma ^{}} be the optimal objective function value for any restricted instance. Then, we can formulate a search problem for the 'most violated constraint' in the original problem space, namely finding ω ∗ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega ^{}\in \Omega } as ω ∗ = argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n . {\displaystyle \omega ^{}={\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}.} That is, we search the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for a single decision stump h ( ⋅ ; ω ∗ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ^{})} maximizing the left hand side of the dual constraint. If the constraint cannot be violated by any choice of decision stump, none of the corresponding constraint can be active in the original problem and the restricted problem is equivalent. ==== Penalization constant ==== D {\displaystyle D} The positive value of penalization constant D {\displaystyle D} has to be found using model selection techniques. However, if we choose D = 1 ℓ ν {\displaystyle D={\frac {1}{\ell \nu }}} , where ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } is the number of training samples and 0 < ν < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\nu <1} , then the new parameter ν {\displaystyle \nu } has the following properties. ν {\displaystyle \nu } is an upper bound on the fraction of training errors; that is, if k {\displaystyle k} denotes the number of misclassified training samples, then k ℓ ≤ ν {\displaystyle {\frac {k}{\ell }}\leq \nu } . ν {\displaystyle \nu } is a lower bound on the fraction of training samples outside or on the margin. == Algorithm == Input: Training set X = { x 1 , … , x ℓ } {\displaystyle X=\{{\boldsymbol {x}}_{1},\dots ,{\boldsymbol {x}}_{\ell }\}} , x i ∈ X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}\in {\mathcal {X}}} Training labels Y = { y 1 , … , y ℓ } {\displaystyle Y=\{y_{1},\dots ,y_{\ell }\}} , y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} Convergence threshold θ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \theta \geq 0} Output: Classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} Initialization Weights, uniform λ n ← 1 ℓ , n = 1 , … , ℓ {\displaystyle \lambda _{n}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{\ell }},\quad n=1,\dots ,\ell } Edge γ ← 0 {\displaystyle \gamma \leftarrow 0} Hypothesis count J ← 1 {\displaystyle J\leftarrow 1} Iterate h ^ ← argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}\leftarrow {\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}} if ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ^ ( x n ) λ n + γ ≤ θ {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}{\hat {h}}({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n})\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq \theta } then break h J ← h ^ {\displaystyle h_{J}\leftarrow {\hat {h}}} J

  Read more →
• 

  Error tolerance (PAC learning)

  In PAC learning, error tolerance refers to the ability of an algorithm to learn when the examples received have been corrupted in some way. In fact, this is a very common and important issue since in many applications it is not possible to access noise-free data. Noise can interfere with the learning process at different levels: the algorithm may receive data that have been occasionally mislabeled, or the inputs may have some false information, or the classification of the examples may have been maliciously adulterated. == Notation and the Valiant learning model == In the following, let X {\displaystyle X} be our n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional input space. Let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be a class of functions that we wish to use in order to learn a { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued target function f {\displaystyle f} defined over X {\displaystyle X} . Let D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} be the distribution of the inputs over X {\displaystyle X} . The goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . Let us suppose we have a function s i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle size(f)} that can measure the complexity of f {\displaystyle f} . Let Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} be an oracle that, whenever called, returns an example x {\displaystyle x} and its correct label f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . When no noise corrupts the data, we can define learning in the Valiant setting: Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the Valiant setting if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , 1 δ , n , size ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,{\text{size}}(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition error ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle {\text{error}}(h)\leq \varepsilon } . In the following we will define learnability of f {\displaystyle f} when data have suffered some modification. == Classification noise == In the classification noise model a noise rate 0 ≤ η < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta <{\frac {1}{2}}} is introduced. Then, instead of Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} that returns always the correct label of example x {\displaystyle x} , algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can only call a faulty oracle Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} that will flip the label of x {\displaystyle x} with probability η {\displaystyle \eta } . As in the Valiant case, the goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . In applications it is difficult to have access to the real value of η {\displaystyle \eta } , but we assume we have access to its upperbound η B {\displaystyle \eta _{B}} . Note that if we allow the noise rate to be 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} , then learning becomes impossible in any amount of computation time, because every label conveys no information about the target function. Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the classification noise model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 ≤ η ≤ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta \leq {\frac {1}{2}}} , 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 1 − 2 η B , 1 ε , 1 δ , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{1-2\eta _{B}}},{\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,size(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \varepsilon } . == Statistical query learning == Statistical Query Learning is a kind of active learning problem in which the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can decide if to request information about the likelihood P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} that a function f {\displaystyle f} correctly labels example x {\displaystyle x} , and receives an answer accurate within a tolerance α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Formally, whenever the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls the oracle Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} , it receives as feedback probability Q f ( x ) {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}} , such that Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } . Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the statistical query learning model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} and polynomials p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , q ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle q(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , and r ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle r(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} the following hold: Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} can evaluate P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} in time q ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle q\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} ; 1 α {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\alpha }}} is bounded by r ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle r\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} outputs a model h {\displaystyle h} such that e r r ( h ) < ε {\displaystyle err(h)<\varepsilon } , in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} . Note that the confidence parameter δ {\displaystyle \delta } does not appear in the definition of learning. This is because the main purpose of δ {\displaystyle \delta } is to allow the learning algorithm a small probability of failure due to an unrepresentative sample. Since now Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} always guarantees to meet the approximation criterion Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } , the failure probability is no longer needed. The statistical query model is strictly weaker than the PAC model: any efficiently SQ-learnable class is efficiently PAC learnable in the presence of classification noise, but there exist efficient PAC-learnable problems such as parity that are not efficiently SQ-learnable. == Malicious classification == In the malicious classification model an adversary generates errors to foil the learning algorithm. This setting describes situations of error burst, which may occur when for a limited time transmission equipment malfunctions repeatedly. Formally, algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls an oracle Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )} that returns a correctly labeled example x {\displaystyle x} drawn, as usual, from distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} over the input space with probability 1 − β {\displaystyle 1-\beta } , but it returns with probability β {\displaystyle \beta } an example drawn from a distribution that is not related to D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . Moreover, this maliciously chosen example may strategically selected by an adversary who has knowledge of f {\displaystyle f} , β {\displaystyle \beta } , D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} , or the current progress of the learning algorithm. Definition: Given a bound β B < 1 2 {\displaystyle \beta _{B}<{\frac {1}{2}}} for 0 ≤ β < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \beta <{\frac {1}{2}}} , we say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the malicious classification model, if there exist a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )}

  Read more →
• 

  Friendica

  Friendica (formerly Friendika, originally Mistpark) is a free and open-source software distributed social network. It forms one part of the Fediverse, an interconnected and decentralized network of independently operated servers. == Features == Friendica users can connect with others via their own Friendica server, but may also fully integrate contacts from other platforms including Diaspora, Pump.io, GNU social, email, Discourse and more recently ActivityPub (including Mastodon, Pleroma and Pixelfed) and Bluesky into their 'newsfeed'. In addition to these two way connections, users can also use Friendica as a publishing platform to post content to WordPress, Tumblr, Insanejournal and Libertree. Posting to Google+ was also supported until that service was shut down. In addition, RSS feeds can be ingested. Because users are distributed across many servers, their "addresses" consist of a username, the "@" symbol, and the domain name of the Friendica instance in the same manner email addresses are formed. Twitter support was available but was deprecated due to API changes under Elon Musk's leadership rendering it unusable. Most of the functionality from major microblogging and social networking platforms are available in Friendica; for example, tagging users and groups via "@ mentions"; direct messages; hashtags; photo albums; "likes"; "dislikes"; comments; and re-shares of publicly visible posts. Published items can be edited and updated across the network. Comprehensive settings for privacy and the public visibility of posts allow users to regulate who can read which contributions, or see specific information about the user. Users can also create multiple profiles, allowing different groups of people (such as friends, or work mates) to see a different profile entirely when viewing the same page. User accounts can be downloaded or deleted, and can be imported to a different Friendica server if so required. Public forums can be created under different accounts, which can be switched between if the accounts are registered with the same email address. == Development == There is no corporation behind Friendica. The developers work on a voluntary basis and the project is run informally; the platform itself is used for the communication between the developers. There are different forums within Friendica, such as "Friendica Developers" and "Friendica Support". The source code of Friendica is hosted on GitHub. == Installation == The developers aim to make installation of the software as simple as possible for technical laymen. They argue that decentralization on small servers is a key condition for the freedom of users and their self-determination. The difficulty level is similar to an installation of WordPress. However, the installing on shared hosting is sometimes difficult because of missing PHP5 modules. Some volunteers also run public servers so that newcomers can also avoid the installation of their own software. == List of clients == Friendica implements multiple client-server API variants simultaneously. Along with endpoints needed to use enhanced Friendica features, it also implements the API used by GNU social, Twitter and since version 2021.06 also the one used by Mastodon. As a result, most GNU social and Mastodon clients can be used for Friendica. Examples of Friendica compatible clients include: Raccoon for Friendica, Friendiqa, Fedilab, AndStatus, Twidere and DiCa for Android, friendly for Sailfish OS, friclicli (CLI client), choqok and Friendiqa for Linux and Friendica Mobile for Windows 10. == Reception == Friendica was cited in January 2012 by Infoshop News as an "alternative to Google+ and Facebook" to be used on the Occupy Nigeria movement. In January 2012 Free Software Foundation Europe's blog cited Friendica as a reasonable alternative to centralized and controlled social networks such as Facebook or Google+. Biblical Notes writer J. Randal Matheny described Friendica in January 2012 as "One social networking option flying under the radar until recently deserves consideration as an already stable platform with a wide range of options, applications, plug-ins, and possibilities for opening up the Internet." In February 2012, the German computer magazine c't wrote: "Friendica demonstrates how decentralized social networks can become widely accepted." Another German publication, the professional magazine t3n listed Friendica as a Facebook rival in an online article in March 2012 about Facebook alternatives. It compared Friendica with similar social networks like Diaspora and identi.ca. MSN Tech & Gadgets contributor Emma Boyes wrote about Friendica in May 2012: "why you'll love it: you can use it to access all the other social networks and get recommendations of new friends and groups to join. Friendica is open source and decentralised. There's no corporation behind it and there are extensive privacy settings. You can choose from a variety of user interfaces and it boasts some cool features—for instance, being able to key in a list of your interests and use the 'profile match' feature to recommend other users who share them with you. A word of warning, though, the site is not as user-friendly as the others on this list, so it may be this one is one for the geeks." == Later reviews == Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk had revitalized public interest in Fediverse technologies in April 2022. Friendica received favorable reviews, with a PCMag article describing it as "mostly comparable to Facebook", drawing a parallel to Google+ and highlighting using it "for planning events, and its multiple profile feature means you can show a different face to your friends, coworkers, and family". The September 2022 issue of Linux Magazine contains a detailed comparison and walk-through of registering to and using basic functions of Diaspora, Friendica and Mastodon. They describe Friendica as "intuitive" and highlight the "huge choice of account settings" and that "Friendica does not require any specific hardware, so you can use an old computer system as a server." == Vulnerabilities == In September 2020, a hotfix was released to patch a security vulnerability that could leak sensitive information from the server environment since versions released in April 2019 (develop branch) and June 2019 (stable).

  Read more →
• 

  Probably approximately correct learning

  In computational learning theory, probably approximately correct (PAC) learning is a framework for mathematical analysis of machine learning. It was proposed in 1984 by Leslie Valiant. In this framework, the learner receives samples and must select a generalization function (called the hypothesis) from a certain class of possible functions. The goal is that, with high probability (the "probably" part), the selected function will have low generalization error (the "approximately correct" part). The learner must be able to learn the concept given any arbitrary approximation ratio, probability of success, or distribution of the samples. The model was later extended to treat noise (misclassified samples). An important innovation of the PAC framework is the introduction of computational complexity theory concepts to machine learning. In particular, the learner is expected to find efficient functions (time and space requirements bounded to a polynomial of the example size), and the learner itself must implement an efficient procedure (requiring an example count bounded to a polynomial of the concept size, modified by the approximation and likelihood bounds). == Definitions and terminology == In order to give the definition for something that is PAC-learnable, we first have to introduce some terminology. For the following definitions, two examples will be used. The first is the problem of character recognition given an array of n {\displaystyle n} bits encoding a binary-valued image. The other example is the problem of finding an interval that will correctly classify points within the interval as positive and the points outside of the range as negative. Let X {\displaystyle X} be a set called the instance space or the encoding of all the samples. In the character recognition problem, the instance space is X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} . In the interval problem the instance space, X {\displaystyle X} , is the set of all bounded intervals in R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , where R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } denotes the set of all real numbers. A concept is a subset c ⊂ X {\displaystyle c\subset X} . One concept is the set of all patterns of bits in X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} that encode a picture of the letter "P". An example concept from the second example is the set of open intervals, { ( a , b ) ∣ 0 ≤ a ≤ π / 2 , π ≤ b ≤ 13 } {\displaystyle \{(a,b)\mid 0\leq a\leq \pi /2,\pi \leq b\leq {\sqrt {13}}\}} , each of which contains only the positive points. A concept class C {\displaystyle C} is a collection of concepts over X {\displaystyle X} . This could be the set of all subsets of the array of bits that are skeletonized 4-connected (width of the font is 1). Let EX ⁡ ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} be a procedure that draws an example, x {\displaystyle x} , using a probability distribution D {\displaystyle D} and gives the correct label c ( x ) {\displaystyle c(x)} , that is 1 if x ∈ c {\displaystyle x\in c} and 0 otherwise. Now, given 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} , assume there is an algorithm A {\displaystyle A} and a polynomial p {\displaystyle p} in 1 / ϵ , 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon ,1/\delta } (and other relevant parameters of the class C {\displaystyle C} ) such that, given a sample of size p {\displaystyle p} drawn according to EX ⁡ ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} , then, with probability of at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } , A {\displaystyle A} outputs a hypothesis h ∈ C {\displaystyle h\in C} that has an average error less than or equal to ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } on X {\displaystyle X} with the same distribution D {\displaystyle D} . Further if the above statement for algorithm A {\displaystyle A} is true for every concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in C} and for every distribution D {\displaystyle D} over X {\displaystyle X} , and for all 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} then C {\displaystyle C} is (efficiently) PAC learnable (or distribution-free PAC learnable). We can also say that A {\displaystyle A} is a PAC learning algorithm for C {\displaystyle C} . == Equivalence == Under some regularity conditions these conditions are equivalent: The concept class C is PAC learnable. The VC dimension of C is finite. C is a uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli class. C is compressible in the sense of Littlestone and Warmuth

  Read more →
• 

  Error tolerance (PAC learning)

  In PAC learning, error tolerance refers to the ability of an algorithm to learn when the examples received have been corrupted in some way. In fact, this is a very common and important issue since in many applications it is not possible to access noise-free data. Noise can interfere with the learning process at different levels: the algorithm may receive data that have been occasionally mislabeled, or the inputs may have some false information, or the classification of the examples may have been maliciously adulterated. == Notation and the Valiant learning model == In the following, let X {\displaystyle X} be our n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional input space. Let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be a class of functions that we wish to use in order to learn a { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued target function f {\displaystyle f} defined over X {\displaystyle X} . Let D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} be the distribution of the inputs over X {\displaystyle X} . The goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . Let us suppose we have a function s i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle size(f)} that can measure the complexity of f {\displaystyle f} . Let Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} be an oracle that, whenever called, returns an example x {\displaystyle x} and its correct label f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . When no noise corrupts the data, we can define learning in the Valiant setting: Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the Valiant setting if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , 1 δ , n , size ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,{\text{size}}(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition error ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle {\text{error}}(h)\leq \varepsilon } . In the following we will define learnability of f {\displaystyle f} when data have suffered some modification. == Classification noise == In the classification noise model a noise rate 0 ≤ η < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta <{\frac {1}{2}}} is introduced. Then, instead of Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} that returns always the correct label of example x {\displaystyle x} , algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can only call a faulty oracle Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} that will flip the label of x {\displaystyle x} with probability η {\displaystyle \eta } . As in the Valiant case, the goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . In applications it is difficult to have access to the real value of η {\displaystyle \eta } , but we assume we have access to its upperbound η B {\displaystyle \eta _{B}} . Note that if we allow the noise rate to be 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} , then learning becomes impossible in any amount of computation time, because every label conveys no information about the target function. Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the classification noise model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 ≤ η ≤ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta \leq {\frac {1}{2}}} , 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 1 − 2 η B , 1 ε , 1 δ , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{1-2\eta _{B}}},{\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,size(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \varepsilon } . == Statistical query learning == Statistical Query Learning is a kind of active learning problem in which the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can decide if to request information about the likelihood P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} that a function f {\displaystyle f} correctly labels example x {\displaystyle x} , and receives an answer accurate within a tolerance α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Formally, whenever the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls the oracle Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} , it receives as feedback probability Q f ( x ) {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}} , such that Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } . Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the statistical query learning model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} and polynomials p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , q ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle q(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , and r ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle r(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} the following hold: Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} can evaluate P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} in time q ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle q\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} ; 1 α {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\alpha }}} is bounded by r ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle r\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} outputs a model h {\displaystyle h} such that e r r ( h ) < ε {\displaystyle err(h)<\varepsilon } , in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} . Note that the confidence parameter δ {\displaystyle \delta } does not appear in the definition of learning. This is because the main purpose of δ {\displaystyle \delta } is to allow the learning algorithm a small probability of failure due to an unrepresentative sample. Since now Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} always guarantees to meet the approximation criterion Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } , the failure probability is no longer needed. The statistical query model is strictly weaker than the PAC model: any efficiently SQ-learnable class is efficiently PAC learnable in the presence of classification noise, but there exist efficient PAC-learnable problems such as parity that are not efficiently SQ-learnable. == Malicious classification == In the malicious classification model an adversary generates errors to foil the learning algorithm. This setting describes situations of error burst, which may occur when for a limited time transmission equipment malfunctions repeatedly. Formally, algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls an oracle Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )} that returns a correctly labeled example x {\displaystyle x} drawn, as usual, from distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} over the input space with probability 1 − β {\displaystyle 1-\beta } , but it returns with probability β {\displaystyle \beta } an example drawn from a distribution that is not related to D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . Moreover, this maliciously chosen example may strategically selected by an adversary who has knowledge of f {\displaystyle f} , β {\displaystyle \beta } , D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} , or the current progress of the learning algorithm. Definition: Given a bound β B < 1 2 {\displaystyle \beta _{B}<{\frac {1}{2}}} for 0 ≤ β < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \beta <{\frac {1}{2}}} , we say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the malicious classification model, if there exist a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )}

  Read more →
• 

  Locality-sensitive hashing

  In computer science, locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) is a fuzzy hashing technique that hashes similar input items into the same "buckets" with high probability. The number of buckets is much smaller than the universe of possible input items. Since similar items end up in the same buckets, this technique can be used for data clustering and nearest neighbor search. It differs from conventional hashing techniques in that hash collisions are maximized, not minimized. Alternatively, the technique can be seen as a way to reduce the dimensionality of high-dimensional data; high-dimensional input items can be reduced to low-dimensional versions while preserving relative distances between items. Hashing-based approximate nearest-neighbor search algorithms generally use one of two main categories of hashing methods: either data-independent methods, such as locality-sensitive hashing (LSH); or data-dependent methods, such as locality-preserving hashing (LPH). Locality-preserving hashing was initially devised as a way to facilitate data pipelining in implementations of massively parallel algorithms that use randomized routing and universal hashing to reduce memory contention and network congestion. == Definitions == A finite family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} of functions h : M → S {\displaystyle h\colon M\to S} is defined to be an LSH family for a metric space M = ( M , d ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}=(M,d)} , a threshold r > 0 {\displaystyle r>0} , an approximation factor c > 1 {\displaystyle c>1} , and probabilities p 1 > p 2 {\displaystyle p_{1}>p_{2}} if it satisfies the following condition. For any two points a , b ∈ M {\displaystyle a,b\in M} and a hash function h {\displaystyle h} chosen uniformly at random from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} : If d ( a , b ) ≤ r {\displaystyle d(a,b)\leq r} , then h ( a ) = h ( b ) {\displaystyle h(a)=h(b)} (i.e., a and b collide) with probability at least p 1 {\displaystyle p_{1}} , If d ( a , b ) ≥ c r {\displaystyle d(a,b)\geq cr} , then h ( a ) = h ( b ) {\displaystyle h(a)=h(b)} with probability at most p 2 {\displaystyle p_{2}} . Such a family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called ( r , c r , p 1 , p 2 ) {\displaystyle (r,cr,p_{1},p_{2})} -sensitive. === LSH with respect to a similarity measure === Alternatively it is possible to define an LSH family on a universe of items U endowed with a similarity function ϕ : U × U → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \phi \colon U\times U\to [0,1]} . In this setting, a LSH scheme is a family of hash functions H coupled with a probability distribution D over H such that a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} chosen according to D satisfies P r [ h ( a ) = h ( b ) ] = ϕ ( a , b ) {\displaystyle Pr[h(a)=h(b)]=\phi (a,b)} for each a , b ∈ U {\displaystyle a,b\in U} . === Amplification === Given a ( d 1 , d 2 , p 1 , p 2 ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},p_{1},p_{2})} -sensitive family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , we can construct new families G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} by either the AND-construction or OR-construction of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . To create an AND-construction, we define a new family G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} of hash functions g, where each function g is constructed from k random functions h 1 , … , h k {\displaystyle h_{1},\ldots ,h_{k}} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . We then say that for a hash function g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , g ( x ) = g ( y ) {\displaystyle g(x)=g(y)} if and only if all h i ( x ) = h i ( y ) {\displaystyle h_{i}(x)=h_{i}(y)} for i = 1 , 2 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,2,\ldots ,k} . Since the members of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} are independently chosen for any g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} is a ( d 1 , d 2 , p 1 k , p 2 k ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},p_{1}^{k},p_{2}^{k})} -sensitive family. To create an OR-construction, we define a new family G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} of hash functions g, where each function g is constructed from k random functions h 1 , … , h k {\displaystyle h_{1},\ldots ,h_{k}} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . We then say that for a hash function g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , g ( x ) = g ( y ) {\displaystyle g(x)=g(y)} if and only if h i ( x ) = h i ( y ) {\displaystyle h_{i}(x)=h_{i}(y)} for one or more values of i. Since the members of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} are independently chosen for any g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} is a ( d 1 , d 2 , 1 − ( 1 − p 1 ) k , 1 − ( 1 − p 2 ) k ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},1-(1-p_{1})^{k},1-(1-p_{2})^{k})} -sensitive family. == Applications == LSH has been applied to several problem domains, including: Near-duplicate detection Hierarchical clustering Genome-wide association study Image similarity identification VisualRank Gene expression similarity identification Audio similarity identification Nearest neighbor search Audio fingerprint Digital video fingerprinting Shared memory organization in parallel computing Physical data organization in database management systems Training fully connected neural networks Computer security Machine learning == Methods == === Bit sampling for Hamming distance === One of the easiest ways to construct an LSH family is by bit sampling. This approach works for the Hamming distance over d-dimensional vectors { 0 , 1 } d {\displaystyle \{0,1\}^{d}} . Here, the family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} of hash functions is simply the family of all the projections of points on one of the d {\displaystyle d} coordinates, i.e., F = { h : { 0 , 1 } d → { 0 , 1 } ∣ h ( x ) = x i for some i ∈ { 1 , … , d } } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{h\colon \{0,1\}^{d}\to \{0,1\}\mid h(x)=x_{i}{\text{ for some }}i\in \{1,\ldots ,d\}\}} , where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} . A random function h {\displaystyle h} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} simply selects a random bit from the input point. This family has the following parameters: P 1 = 1 − R / d {\displaystyle P_{1}=1-R/d} , P 2 = 1 − c R / d {\displaystyle P_{2}=1-cR/d} . That is, any two vectors x , y {\displaystyle x,y} with Hamming distance at most R {\displaystyle R} collide under a random h {\displaystyle h} with probability at least P 1 {\displaystyle P_{1}} . Any x , y {\displaystyle x,y} with Hamming distance at least c R {\displaystyle cR} collide with probability at most P 2 {\displaystyle P_{2}} . === Min-wise independent permutations === Suppose U is composed of subsets of some ground set of enumerable items S and the similarity function of interest is the Jaccard index J. If π is a permutation on the indices of S, for A ⊆ S {\displaystyle A\subseteq S} let h ( A ) = min a ∈ A { π ( a ) } {\displaystyle h(A)=\min _{a\in A}\{\pi (a)\}} . Each possible choice of π defines a single hash function h mapping input sets to elements of S. Define the function family H to be the set of all such functions and let D be the uniform distribution. Given two sets A , B ⊆ S {\displaystyle A,B\subseteq S} the event that h ( A ) = h ( B ) {\displaystyle h(A)=h(B)} corresponds exactly to the event that the minimizer of π over A ∪ B {\displaystyle A\cup B} lies inside A ∩ B {\displaystyle A\cap B} . As h was chosen uniformly at random, P r [ h ( A ) = h ( B ) ] = J ( A , B ) {\displaystyle Pr[h(A)=h(B)]=J(A,B)\,} and ( H , D ) {\displaystyle (H,D)\,} define an LSH scheme for the Jaccard index. Because the symmetric group on n elements has size n!, choosing a truly random permutation from the full symmetric group is infeasible for even moderately sized n. Because of this fact, there has been significant work on finding a family of permutations that is "min-wise independent" — a permutation family for which each element of the domain has equal probability of being the minimum under a randomly chosen π. It has been established that a min-wise independent family of permutations is at least of size lcm ⁡ { 1 , 2 , … , n } ≥ e n − o ( n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {lcm} \{\,1,2,\ldots ,n\,\}\geq e^{n-o(n)}} , and that this bound is tight. Because min-wise independent families are too big for practical applications, two variant notions of min-wise independence are introduced: restricted min-wise independent permutations families, and approximate min-wise independent families. Restricted min-wise independence is the min-wise independence property restricted to certain sets of cardinality at most k. Approximate min-wise independence differs from the property by at most a fixed ε. === Open source methods === ==== Nilsimsa Hash ==== Nilsimsa is a locality-sensitive hashing algorithm used in anti-spam efforts. The goal of Nilsimsa is to generate a hash digest of an email message such that the digests of two similar messages are similar to each other. The paper suggests that the Nilsimsa satisfies three requirements: The digest identifying each message should not

  Read more →
• 

  IruSoft

  IruSoft (Arabic: آيروسوفت) is an insurance regulatory platform designated for licensing, supervision and inspection of the insurance sector within a country. The platform introduced unique supervision-technology (suptech), insurance-technology (insurtech) and regulatory-technology (regtech) automated modules by which a regulator requires less resources to ensure fairness, transparency and competition and to prevent conflicts of interest in the sector. IruSoft was founded by Abdullah Al-Salloum and owned by the Insurance Regulatory Unit in Kuwait. The Insurance Regulatory Unit optimized processing insurance-sector's customer complaints by issuing Resolution No. (1) of 2022 that introduced IruSoft's complaints public module; an automated resolution center, by which the process of receiving submitted complaints, passing them on to the platforms of licensed insurance companies, tracking matter-related discussions and updates and getting them escalated if unresolved to be discussed by a committee assigned by the unit is integrally automated and analyzed for better key performance indicators.

  Read more →
• 

  Almeida–Pineda recurrent backpropagation

  Almeida–Pineda recurrent backpropagation is an extension to the backpropagation algorithm that is applicable to recurrent neural networks. It is a type of supervised learning. It was described somewhat cryptically in Richard Feynman's senior thesis, and rediscovered independently in the context of artificial neural networks by both Fernando Pineda and Luis B. Almeida. A recurrent neural network for this algorithm consists of some input units, some output units and eventually some hidden units. For a given set of (input, target) states, the network is trained to settle into a stable activation state with the output units in the target state, based on a given input state clamped on the input units.

  Read more →
• 

  Prefrontal cortex basal ganglia working memory

  Prefrontal cortex basal ganglia working memory (PBWM) is an algorithm that models working memory in the prefrontal cortex and the basal ganglia. It can be compared to long short-term memory (LSTM) in functionality, but is more biologically explainable. It uses the primary value learned value model to train prefrontal cortex working-memory updating system, based on the biology of the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia. It is used as part of the Leabra framework and was implemented in Emergent in 2019. == Abstract == The prefrontal cortex has long been thought to subserve both working memory (the holding of information online for processing) and "executive" functions (deciding how to manipulate working memory and perform processing). Although many computational models of working memory have been developed, the mechanistic basis of executive function remains elusive. PBWM is a computational model of the prefrontal cortex to control both itself and other brain areas in a strategic, task-appropriate manner. These learning mechanisms are based on subcortical structures in the midbrain, basal ganglia and amygdala, which together form an actor/critic architecture. The critic system learns which prefrontal representations are task-relevant and trains the actor, which in turn provides a dynamic gating mechanism for controlling working memory updating. Computationally, the learning mechanism is designed to simultaneously solve the temporal and structural credit assignment problems. The model's performance compares favorably with standard backpropagation-based temporal learning mechanisms on the challenging 1-2-AX working memory task, and other benchmark working memory tasks. == Model == First, there are multiple separate stripes (groups of units) in the prefrontal cortex and striatum layers. Each stripe can be independently updated, such that this system can remember several different things at the same time, each with a different "updating policy" of when memories are updated and maintained. The active maintenance of the memory is in prefrontal cortex (PFC), and the updating signals (and updating policy more generally) come from the striatum units (a subset of basal ganglia units). PVLV provides reinforcement learning signals to train up the dynamic gating system in the basal ganglia. === Sensory input and motor output === The sensory input is connected to the posterior cortex which is connected to the motor output. The sensory input is also linked to the PVLV system. === Posterior cortex === The posterior cortex form the hidden layers of the input/output mapping. The PFC is connected with the posterior cortex to contextualize this input/output mapping. === PFC === The PFC (for output gating) has a localist one-to-one representation of the input units for every stripe. Thus, you can look at these PFC representations and see directly what the network is maintaining. The PFC maintains the working memory needed to perform the task. === Striatum === This is the dynamic gating system representing the striatum units of the basal ganglia. Every even-index unit within a stripe represents "Go", while the odd-index units represent "NoGo." The Go units cause updating of the PFC, while the NoGo units cause the PFC to maintain its existing memory representation. There are groups of units for every stripe. In the PBWM model in Emergent, the matrices represent the striatum. === PVLV === All of these layers are part of PVLV system. The PVLV system controls the dopaminergic modulation of the basal ganglia (BG). Thus, BG/PVLV form an actor-critic architecture where the PVLV system learns when to update. ==== SNrThal ==== SNrThal represents the substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr) and the associated area of the thalamus, which produce a competition among the Go/NoGo units within a given stripe and mediates competition using k-winners-take-all dynamics. If there is more overall Go activity in a given stripe, then the associated SNrThal unit gets activated, and it drives updating in PFC. For every stripe, there is one unit in SNrThal. ==== VTA and SNc ==== Ventral tegmental area (VTA) and substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) are part of the dopamine layer. This layer models midbrain dopamine neurons. They control the dopaminergic modulation of the basal ganglia.

  Read more →
• 

  BrownBoost

  BrownBoost is a boosting algorithm that may be robust to noisy datasets. BrownBoost is an adaptive version of the boost by majority algorithm. As is the case for all boosting algorithms, BrownBoost is used in conjunction with other machine learning methods. BrownBoost was introduced by Yoav Freund in 2001. == Motivation == AdaBoost performs well on a variety of datasets; however, it can be shown that AdaBoost does not perform well on noisy data sets. This is a result of AdaBoost's focus on examples that are repeatedly misclassified. In contrast, BrownBoost effectively "gives up" on examples that are repeatedly misclassified. The core assumption of BrownBoost is that noisy examples will be repeatedly mislabeled by the weak hypotheses and non-noisy examples will be correctly labeled frequently enough to not be "given up on." Thus only noisy examples will be "given up on," whereas non-noisy examples will contribute to the final classifier. In turn, if the final classifier is learned from the non-noisy examples, the generalization error of the final classifier may be much better than if learned from noisy and non-noisy examples. The user of the algorithm can set the amount of error to be tolerated in the training set. Thus, if the training set is noisy (say 10% of all examples are assumed to be mislabeled), the booster can be told to accept a 10% error rate. Since the noisy examples may be ignored, only the true examples will contribute to the learning process. == Algorithm description == BrownBoost uses a non-convex potential loss function, thus it does not fit into the AdaBoost framework. The non-convex optimization provides a method to avoid overfitting noisy data sets. However, in contrast to boosting algorithms that analytically minimize a convex loss function (e.g. AdaBoost and LogitBoost), BrownBoost solves a system of two equations and two unknowns using standard numerical methods. The only parameter of BrownBoost ( c {\displaystyle c} in the algorithm) is the "time" the algorithm runs. The theory of BrownBoost states that each hypothesis takes a variable amount of time ( t {\displaystyle t} in the algorithm) which is directly related to the weight given to the hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } . The time parameter in BrownBoost is analogous to the number of iterations T {\displaystyle T} in AdaBoost. A larger value of c {\displaystyle c} means that BrownBoost will treat the data as if it were less noisy and therefore will give up on fewer examples. Conversely, a smaller value of c {\displaystyle c} means that BrownBoost will treat the data as more noisy and give up on more examples. During each iteration of the algorithm, a hypothesis is selected with some advantage over random guessing. The weight of this hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } and the "amount of time passed" t {\displaystyle t} during the iteration are simultaneously solved in a system of two non-linear equations ( 1. uncorrelated hypothesis w.r.t example weights and 2. hold the potential constant) with two unknowns (weight of hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } and time passed t {\displaystyle t} ). This can be solved by bisection (as implemented in the JBoost software package) or Newton's method (as described in the original paper by Freund). Once these equations are solved, the margins of each example ( r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} in the algorithm) and the amount of time remaining s {\displaystyle s} are updated appropriately. This process is repeated until there is no time remaining. The initial potential is defined to be 1 m ∑ j = 1 m 1 − erf ( c ) = 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{j=1}^{m}1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})=1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . Since a constraint of each iteration is that the potential be held constant, the final potential is 1 m ∑ j = 1 m 1 − erf ( r i ( x j ) / c ) = 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{j=1}^{m}1-{\mbox{erf}}(r_{i}(x_{j})/{\sqrt {c}})=1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . Thus the final error is likely to be near 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle 1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . However, the final potential function is not the 0–1 loss error function. For the final error to be exactly 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle 1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} , the variance of the loss function must decrease linearly w.r.t. time to form the 0–1 loss function at the end of boosting iterations. This is not yet discussed in the literature and is not in the definition of the algorithm below. The final classifier is a linear combination of weak hypotheses and is evaluated in the same manner as most other boosting algorithms. == BrownBoost learning algorithm definition == Input: m {\displaystyle m} training examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x m , y m ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{m},y_{m})} where x j ∈ X , y j ∈ Y = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle x_{j}\in X,\,y_{j}\in Y=\{-1,+1\}} The parameter c {\displaystyle c} Initialise: s = c {\displaystyle s=c} . (The value of s {\displaystyle s} is the amount of time remaining in the game) r i ( x j ) = 0 {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})=0} ∀ j {\displaystyle \forall j} . The value of r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} is the margin at iteration i {\displaystyle i} for example x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} . While s > 0 {\displaystyle s>0} : Set the weights of each example: W i ( x j ) = e − ( r i ( x j ) + s ) 2 c {\displaystyle W_{i}(x_{j})=e^{-{\frac {(r_{i}(x_{j})+s)^{2}}{c}}}} , where r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} is the margin of example x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} Find a classifier h i : X → { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle h_{i}:X\to \{-1,+1\}} such that ∑ j W i ( x j ) h i ( x j ) y j > 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}W_{i}(x_{j})h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}>0} Find values α , t {\displaystyle \alpha ,t} that satisfy the equation: ∑ j h i ( x j ) y j e − ( r i ( x j ) + α h i ( x j ) y j + s − t ) 2 c = 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}e^{-{\frac {(r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}+s-t)^{2}}{c}}}=0} . (Note this is similar to the condition E W i + 1 [ h i ( x j ) y j ] = 0 {\displaystyle E_{W_{i+1}}[h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}]=0} set forth by Schapire and Singer. In this setting, we are numerically finding the W i + 1 = exp ⁡ ( ⋯ ⋯ ) {\displaystyle W_{i+1}=\exp \left({\frac {\cdots }{\cdots }}\right)} such that E W i + 1 [ h i ( x j ) y j ] = 0 {\displaystyle E_{W_{i+1}}[h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}]=0} .) This update is subject to the constraint ∑ ( Φ ( r i ( x j ) + α h ( x j ) y j + s − t ) − Φ ( r i ( x j ) + s ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle \sum \left(\Phi \left(r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h(x_{j})y_{j}+s-t\right)-\Phi \left(r_{i}(x_{j})+s\right)\right)=0} , where Φ ( z ) = 1 − erf ( z / c ) {\displaystyle \Phi (z)=1-{\mbox{erf}}(z/{\sqrt {c}})} is the potential loss for a point with margin r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} Update the margins for each example: r i + 1 ( x j ) = r i ( x j ) + α h ( x j ) y j {\displaystyle r_{i+1}(x_{j})=r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h(x_{j})y_{j}} Update the time remaining: s = s − t {\displaystyle s=s-t} Output: H ( x ) = sign ( ∑ i α i h i ( x ) ) {\displaystyle H(x)={\textrm {sign}}\left(\sum _{i}\alpha _{i}h_{i}(x)\right)} == Empirical results == In preliminary experimental results with noisy datasets, BrownBoost outperformed AdaBoost's generalization error; however, LogitBoost performed as well as BrownBoost. An implementation of BrownBoost can be found in the open source software JBoost.

  Read more →
• 

  Superintelligence ban

  Superintelligence ban refers to proposed legal, ethical, or policy measures intended to restrict or prohibit the development of artificial superintelligence, AI systems that would surpass human cognitive abilities in nearly all domains. The idea arises from concerns that such systems could become uncontrollable, potentially posing existential threats to humanity or causing severe social and economic disruption. == Background == The concept of limiting or banning superintelligence research has roots in early 21st-century debates on artificial general intelligence (AGI) safety. Thinkers such as Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky warned that self-improving AI could rapidly exceed human oversight. As advanced models like large-scale language models and autonomous agents began demonstrating complex reasoning abilities, policymakers and ethicists increasingly discussed the need for legal constraints on the creation of systems capable of recursive self-improvement. In October 2025, the Future of Life Institute published a statement calling for "a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in." This statement was signed by various public personalities, such as Richard Branson and Steve Wozniak, and AI experts, such as Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton. == Rationale == Supporters of a superintelligence ban argue that once AI systems surpass human intelligence, traditional containment, alignment, and control methods may fail. They contend that even limited experimentation with such systems could lead to irreversible outcomes, including loss of human decision-making power or unintended global harm. Some propose international treaties modeled after the nuclear non-proliferation framework to prevent a competitive AI arms race. Opponents argue that a ban would be difficult to define and enforce, given the lack of a precise threshold distinguishing advanced AGI from superintelligence. They also warn that excessive restriction could slow scientific progress, hinder beneficial automation, and encourage unregulated underground research. == Global discussion == Although no government has enacted an explicit superintelligence ban, the idea has been debated within the European Union, United Nations, and several independent AI safety organizations. The Future of Life Institute, Center for AI Safety, and other organizations have called for international cooperation to manage risks associated with the pursuit of superintelligent systems. In 2024 and 2025, proposals for a temporary moratorium on frontier AI research were circulated among major technology firms and research institutes, reflecting growing public concern over the trajectory of AI capabilities.

  Read more →
• 

  Abess

  abess (Adaptive Best Subset Selection, also ABESS) is a machine learning method designed to address the problem of best subset selection. It aims to determine which features or variables are crucial for optimal model performance when provided with a dataset and a prediction task. abess was introduced by Zhu in 2020 and it dynamically selects the appropriate model size adaptively, eliminating the need for selecting regularization parameters. abess is applicable in various statistical and machine learning tasks, including linear regression, the Single-index model, and other common predictive models. abess can also be applied in biostatistics. == Basic Form == The basic form of abess is employed to address the optimal subset selection problem in general linear regression. abess is an l 0 {\displaystyle l_{0}} method, it is characterized by its polynomial time complexity and the property of providing both unbiased and consistent estimates. In the context of linear regression, assuming we have knowledge of n {\displaystyle n} independent samples ( x i , y i ) , i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i}),i=1,\ldots ,n} , where x i ∈ R p × 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{p\times 1}} and y i ∈ R {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} } , we define X = ( x 1 , … , x n ) ⊤ {\displaystyle X=(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})^{\top }} and y = ( y 1 , … , y n ) ⊤ {\displaystyle y=(y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n})^{\top }} . The following equation represents the general linear regression model: y = X β + ε . {\displaystyle y=X\beta +\varepsilon .} To obtain appropriate parameters β {\displaystyle \beta } , one can consider the loss function for linear regression: L n LR ( β ; X , y ) = 1 2 n ‖ y − X β ‖ 2 2 . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}(\beta ;X,y)={\frac {1}{2n}}\|y-X\beta \|_{2}^{2}.} In abess, the initial focus is on optimizing the loss function under the l 0 {\displaystyle l_{0}} constraint. That is, we consider the following problem: min β ∈ R p × 1 L n LR ( β ; X , y ) , subject to ‖ β ‖ 0 ≤ s , {\displaystyle \min _{\beta \in \mathbb {R} ^{p\times 1}}{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}(\beta ;X,y),{\text{ subject to }}\|\beta \|_{0}\leq s,} where s {\displaystyle s} represents the desired size of the support set, and ‖ β ‖ 0 = ∑ i = 1 p I ( β i ≠ 0 ) {\displaystyle \|\beta \|_{0}=\sum _{i=1}^{p}{\mathcal {I}}_{(\beta _{i}\neq 0)}} is the l 0 {\displaystyle l_{0}} norm of the vector. To address the optimization problem described above, abess iteratively exchanges an equal number of variables between the active set and the inactive set. In each iteration, the concept of sacrifice is introduced as follows: For j in the active set ( j ∈ A ^ {\displaystyle j\in {\hat {\mathcal {A}}}} ): ξ j = L n LR ( β ^ A ∖ { j } ) − L n LR ( β ^ A ) = X j ⊤ X j 2 n ( β ^ j ) 2 {\displaystyle \xi _{j}={\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{{\mathcal {A}}\backslash \{j\}}\right)-{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{\mathcal {A}}\right)={\frac {{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}}{2n}}\left({\hat {\beta }}_{j}\right)^{2}} For j in the inactive set ( j ∉ A ^ {\displaystyle j\notin {\hat {\mathcal {A}}}} ): ξ j = L n LR ( β ^ A ) − L n LR ( β ^ A + t ^ { j } ) = X j ⊤ X j 2 n ( d ^ j X j ⊤ X j / n ) 2 {\displaystyle \xi _{j}={\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{\mathcal {A}}\right)-{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{\mathcal {A}}+{\hat {\boldsymbol {t}}}^{\{j\}}\right)={\frac {{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}}{2n}}\left({\frac {{\hat {\mathrm {d} }}_{j}}{{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}/n}}\right)^{2}} Here are the key elements in the above equations: β ^ A {\displaystyle {\hat {\beta }}^{\mathcal {A}}} : This represents the estimate of β {\displaystyle \beta } obtained in the previous iteration. A ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathcal {A}}}} : It denotes the estimated active set from the previous iteration. β ^ A ∖ { j } {\displaystyle {\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{{\mathcal {A}}\backslash \{j\}}} : This is a vector where the j-th element is set to 0, while the other elements are the same as β ^ A {\displaystyle {\hat {\beta }}^{\mathcal {A}}} . t ^ { j } = arg ⁡ min t L n LR ( β ^ A + t { j } ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\boldsymbol {t}}}^{\{j\}}=\arg \min _{t}{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{\mathcal {A}}+{\boldsymbol {t}}^{\{j\}}\right)} : Here, t { j } {\displaystyle t^{\{j\}}} represents a vector where all elements are 0 except the j-th element. d ^ j = X j ⊤ ( y − X β ^ ) / n {\displaystyle {\hat {d}}_{j}={\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}^{\top }({\boldsymbol {y}}-{\boldsymbol {X}}{\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}})/n} : This is calculated based on the equation mentioned. The iterative process involves exchanging variables, with the aim of minimizing the sacrifices in the active set while maximizing the sacrifices in the inactive set during each iteration. This approach allows abess to efficiently search for the optimal feature subset. In abess, select an appropriate s max {\displaystyle s_{\max }} and optimize the above problem for active sets size s = 1 , … , s max {\displaystyle s=1,\ldots ,s_{\max }} using the information criterion GIC = n log ⁡ L n LR + s log ⁡ p log ⁡ log ⁡ n , {\displaystyle {\text{GIC}}=n\log {\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}+s\log p\log \log n,} to adaptively choose the appropriate active set size s {\displaystyle s} and obtain its corresponding abess estimator. == Generalizations == The splicing algorithm in abess can be employed for subset selection in other models. === Distribution-Free Location-Scale Regression === In 2023, Siegfried extends abess to the case of Distribution-Free and Location-Scale. Specifically, it considers the optimization problem max ϑ ∈ R P , β ∈ R J , γ ∈ R J ∑ i = 1 N ℓ i ( ϑ , x i ⊤ β , exp ⁡ ( x i ⊤ γ ) − 1 ) , {\displaystyle \max _{{\boldsymbol {\vartheta }}\in \mathbb {R} ^{P},{\boldsymbol {\beta }}\in \mathbb {R} ^{J},{\boldsymbol {\gamma }}\in \mathbb {R} ^{J}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\ell _{i}\left({\boldsymbol {\vartheta }},{\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {\beta }},{\sqrt {\exp \left({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {\gamma }}\right)}}^{-1}\right),} subject to ‖ ( β ⊤ , γ ⊤ ) ⊤ ‖ 0 ≤ s , {\displaystyle \left\|\left({\boldsymbol {\beta }}^{\top },{\boldsymbol {\gamma }}^{\top }\right)^{\top }\right\|_{0}\leq s,} where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is a loss function, ϑ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\vartheta }}} is a parameter vector, β {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\beta }}} and γ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\gamma }}} are vectors, and x i {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}} is a data vector. This approach, demonstrated across various applications, enables parsimonious regression modeling for arbitrary outcomes while maintaining interpretability through innovative subset selection procedures. === Groups Selection === In 2023, Zhang applied the splicing algorithm to group selection, optimizing the following model: min β ∈ R p L n LR ( β ; X , y ) subject to ∑ j = 1 J I ( ‖ β G j ‖ 2 ≠ 0 ) ≤ s {\displaystyle \min _{{\boldsymbol {\beta }}\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}}{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}(\beta ;X,y){\text{ subject to }}\sum _{j=1}^{J}I\left(\|{\boldsymbol {\beta }}_{G_{j}}\|_{2}\neq 0\right)\leq s} Here are the symbols involved: J {\displaystyle J} : Total number of feature groups, representing the existence of J {\displaystyle J} non-overlapping feature groups in the dataset. G j {\displaystyle G_{j}} : Index set for the j {\displaystyle j} -th feature group, where j {\displaystyle j} ranges from 1 to J {\displaystyle J} , representing the feature grouping structure in the data. s {\displaystyle s} : Model size, a positive integer determined from the data, limiting the number of selected feature groups. === Regression with Corrupted Data === Zhang applied the splicing algorithm to handle corrupted data. Corrupted data refers to information that has been disrupted or contains errors during the data collection or recording process. This interference may include sensor inaccuracies, recording errors, communication issues, or other external disturbances, leading to inaccurate or distorted observations within the dataset. === Single Index Models === In 2023, Tang applied the splicing algorithm to optimal subset selection in the Single-index model. The form of the Single Index Model (SIM) is given by y i = g ( b ⊤ x i , e i ) , i = 1 , … , n , {\displaystyle y_{i}=g({\boldsymbol {b}}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},e_{i}),\quad i=1,\ldots ,n,} where b {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {b}}} is the parameter vector, e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} is the error term. The corresponding loss function is defined as l n ( β ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( r i n − 1 2 − x i ⊤ β ) 2 , {\displaystyle l_{n}({\boldsymbol {\beta }})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {r_{i}}{n}}-{\frac {1}{2}}-{\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {\beta }}\right)^{2},} where r {\disp

  Read more →
• 

  Cartesian genetic programming

  Cartesian genetic programming is a form of genetic programming that uses a graph representation to encode computer programs. It grew from a method of evolving digital circuits developed by Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson in 1997. The term ‘Cartesian genetic programming’ first appeared in 1999 and was proposed as a general form of genetic programming in 2000. It is called ‘Cartesian’ because it represents a program using a two-dimensional grid of nodes. Miller's keynote explains how CGP works. He edited a book entitled Cartesian Genetic Programming, published in 2011 by Springer. The open source project dCGP implements a differentiable version of CGP developed at the European Space Agency by Dario Izzo, Francesco Biscani and Alessio Mereta able to approach symbolic regression tasks, to find solution to differential equations, find prime integrals of dynamical systems, represent variable topology artificial neural networks and more.

  Read more →