AI Avatar Kiosk — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.
Picture Prowler was an early piece of photo management software developed around and meant to show off Xing Technology's JPEG image decompression library during the early 1990s. Little known today, it featured thumbnail based picture management, printing, etc. The primary developer was Ray Bunnage from compression / decompression libraries developed by Howard Gordon and Chris Eddy.
Read more →
Dispersive flies optimisation (DFO) is a bare-bones swarm intelligence algorithm which is inspired by the swarming behaviour of flies hovering over food sources. DFO is a simple optimiser which works by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a numerical measure that is calculated by a fitness function. Each member of the population, a fly or an agent, holds a candidate solution whose suitability can be evaluated by their fitness value. Optimisation problems are often formulated as either minimisation or maximisation problems. DFO was introduced with the intention of analysing a simplified swarm intelligence algorithm with the fewest tunable parameters and components. In the first work on DFO, this algorithm was compared against a few other existing swarm intelligence techniques using error, efficiency and diversity measures. It is shown that despite the simplicity of the algorithm, which only uses agents’ position vectors at time t to generate the position vectors for time t + 1, it exhibits a competitive performance. Since its inception, DFO has been used in a variety of applications including medical imaging and image analysis as well as data mining and machine learning. == Algorithm == DFO bears many similarities with other existing continuous, population-based optimisers (e.g. particle swarm optimization and differential evolution). In that, the swarming behaviour of the individuals consists of two tightly connected mechanisms, one is the formation of the swarm and the other is its breaking or weakening. DFO works by facilitating the information exchange between the members of the population (the swarming flies). Each fly x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } represents a position in a d-dimensional search space: x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} , and the fitness of each fly is calculated by the fitness function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} , which takes into account the flies' d dimensions: f ( x ) = f ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )=f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} . The pseudocode below represents one iteration of the algorithm: for i = 1 : N flies x i . fitness = f ( x i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x_{i}} .{\text{fitness}}=f(\mathbf {x} _{i})} end for i x s {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{s}} = arg min [ f ( x i ) ] , i ∈ { 1 , … , N } {\textstyle [f(\mathbf {x} _{i})],\;i\in \{1,\ldots ,N\}} for i = 1 : N and i ≠ s {\displaystyle i\neq s} for d = 1 : D dimensions if U ( 0 , 1 ) < Δ {\displaystyle U(0,1)<\Delta } x i d t + 1 = U ( x min , d , x max , d ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=U(x_{\min ,d},x_{\max ,d})} else x i d t + 1 = x i n d t + U ( 0 , 1 ) ( x s d t − x i d t ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=x_{i_{nd}}^{t}+U(0,1)(x_{sd}^{t}-x_{id}^{t})} end if end for d end for i In the algorithm above, x i d t + 1 {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}} represents fly i {\displaystyle i} at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} ; x i n d t {\displaystyle x_{i_{nd}}^{t}} presents x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} 's best neighbouring fly in ring topology (left or right, using flies indexes), at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t {\displaystyle t} ; and x s d t {\displaystyle x_{sd}^{t}} is the swarm's best fly. Using this update equation, the swarm's population update depends on each fly's best neighbour (which is used as the focus μ {\displaystyle \mu } , and the difference between the current fly and the best in swarm represents the spread of movement, σ {\displaystyle \sigma } ). Other than the population size N {\displaystyle N} , the only tunable parameter is the disturbance threshold Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } , which controls the dimension-wise restart in each fly vector. This mechanism is proposed to control the diversity of the swarm. Other notable minimalist swarm algorithm is Bare bones particle swarms (BB-PSO), which is based on particle swarm optimisation, along with bare bones differential evolution (BBDE) which is a hybrid of the bare bones particle swarm optimiser and differential evolution, aiming to reduce the number of parameters. Alhakbani in her PhD thesis covers many aspects of the algorithms including several DFO applications in feature selection as well as parameter tuning. == Applications == Some of the recent applications of DFO are listed below: Optimising support vector machine kernel to classify imbalanced data Quantifying symmetrical complexity in computational aesthetics Analysing computational autopoiesis and computational creativity Identifying calcifications in medical images Building non-identical organic structures for game's space development Deep Neuroevolution: Training Deep Neural Networks for False Alarm Detection in Intensive Care Units Identification of animation key points from 2D-medialness maps
Read more →
In natural evolution and artificial evolution (e.g. artificial life and evolutionary computation) the fitness (or performance or objective measure) of a schema is rescaled to give its effective fitness which takes into account crossover and mutation. Effective fitness is used in Evolutionary Computation to understand population dynamics. While a biological fitness function only looks at reproductive success, an effective fitness function tries to encompass things that are needed to be fulfilled for survival on population level. In homogeneous populations, reproductive fitness and effective fitness are equal. When a population moves away from homogeneity a higher effective fitness is reached for the recessive genotype. This advantage will decrease while the population moves toward an equilibrium. The deviation from this equilibrium displays how close the population is to achieving a steady state. When this equilibrium is reached, the maximum effective fitness of the population is achieved. Problem solving with evolutionary computation is realized with a cost function. If cost functions are applied to swarm optimization they are called a fitness function. Strategies like reinforcement learning and NEAT neuroevolution are creating a fitness landscape which describes the reproductive success of cellular automata. The effective fitness function models the number of fit offspring and is used in calculations that include evolutionary processes, such as mutation and crossover, important on the population level. The effective fitness model is superior to its predecessor, the standard reproductive fitness model. It advances in the qualitatively and quantitatively understanding of evolutionary concepts like bloat, self-adaptation, and evolutionary robustness. While reproductive fitness only looks at pure selection, effective fitness describes the flow of a population and natural selection by taking genetic operators into account. A normal fitness function fits to a problem, while an effective fitness function is an assumption if the objective was reached. The difference is important for designing fitness functions with algorithms like novelty search in which the objective of the agents is unknown. In the case of bacteria effective fitness could include production of toxins and rate of mutation of different plasmids, which are mostly stochastically determined == Applications == When evolutionary equations of the studied population dynamics are available, one can algorithmically compute the effective fitness of a given population. Though the perfect effective fitness model is yet to be found, it is already known to be a good framework to the better understanding of the moving of the genotype-phenotype map, population dynamics, and the flow on fitness landscapes. Models using a combination of Darwinian fitness functions and effective functions are better at predicting population trends. Effective models could be used to determine therapeutic outcomes of disease treatment. Other models could determine effective protein engineering and works towards finding novel or heightened biochemistry.
Read more →
For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr
Read more →
The BigScience Large Open-science Open-access Multilingual Language Model (BLOOM) is an open-access large language model (LLM) released in 2022. It was created by a volunteer-driven research effort to provide a transparently-created alternative to proprietary AI models. With 176 billion parameters, BLOOM is a transformer-based autoregressive model designed to generate text in 46 natural languages and 13 programming languages. The model is distributed under the project's "Responsible AI License". == Development == BLOOM is the main outcome of the BigScience initiative, a one-year-long research workshop. The project was coordinated by Hugging Face using funding from the French government and involved several hundred volunteer researchers and engineers from academia and the private sector. The model was trained between March and July 2022 on the Jean Zay public supercomputer in France, managed by GENCI and IDRIS (CNRS). Unlike GPT-3, BLOOM was trained to be multilingual. The source code is released under the Apache 2.0 license. The model's parameters are released under BigScience's "Responsible AI License" (RAIL), which grants open access and reuse rights but with some usage restrictions. BLOOM was used in the chatbots BLOOMChat and HuggingChat due to its multilingual abilities. BLOOM's training corpus, named ROOTS, combines data extracted from the then-latest version of the web-based OSCAR corpus (38% of ROOTS) and newly collected data extracted from a manually selected and documented list of language data sources. In total, the model was trained on approximately 366 billion (1.6TB) tokens. It was developed using the open-source libraries DeepSpeed Megatron. BigScience then released xP3, a multilingual dataset for LLM supervised learning. It also released BLOOMZ, a variant of BLOOM fine-tuned on xP3 to follow instructions.
Read more →
Nonlinear dimensionality reduction (NLDR), also known as manifold learning, is any of various related techniques that aim to project high-dimensional data, potentially existing across non-linear manifolds which cannot be adequately captured by linear decomposition methods, onto lower-dimensional latent manifolds, with the goal of either visualizing the data in the low-dimensional space, or learning the mapping (either from the high-dimensional space to the low-dimensional embedding or vice versa) itself. The techniques described below can be understood as generalizations of linear decomposition methods used for dimensionality reduction, such as singular value decomposition and principal component analysis. == Applications of NLDR == High dimensional data can be hard for machines to work with, requiring significant time and space for analysis. It also presents a challenge for humans, since it's hard to visualize or understand data in more than three dimensions. Reducing the dimensionality of a data set, while keeping its essential features relatively intact, can make algorithms more efficient and allow analysts to visualize trends and patterns. The reduced-dimensional representations of data are often referred to as "intrinsic variables". This description implies that these are the values from which the data was produced. For example, consider a dataset that contains images of a letter 'A', which has been scaled and rotated by varying amounts. Each image has 32×32 pixels. Each image can be represented as a vector of 1024 pixel values. Each row is a sample on a two-dimensional manifold in 1024-dimensional space (a Hamming space). The intrinsic dimensionality is two, because two variables (rotation and scale) were varied in order to produce the data. Information about the shape or look of a letter 'A' is not part of the intrinsic variables because it is the same in every instance. Nonlinear dimensionality reduction will discard the correlated information (the letter 'A') and recover only the varying information (rotation and scale). By comparison, if principal component analysis, which is a linear dimensionality reduction algorithm, is used to reduce this same dataset into two dimensions, the resulting values are not so well organized. This demonstrates that the high-dimensional vectors (each representing a letter 'A') that sample this manifold vary in a non-linear manner. It should be apparent, therefore, that NLDR has several applications in the field of computer-vision. For example, consider a robot that uses a camera to navigate in a closed static environment. The images obtained by that camera can be considered to be samples on a manifold in high-dimensional space, and the intrinsic variables of that manifold will represent the robot's position and orientation. Invariant manifolds are of general interest for model order reduction in dynamical systems. In particular, if there is an attracting invariant manifold in the phase space, nearby trajectories will converge onto it and stay on it indefinitely, rendering it a candidate for dimensionality reduction of the dynamical system. While such manifolds are not guaranteed to exist in general, the theory of spectral submanifolds (SSM) gives conditions for the existence of unique attracting invariant objects in a broad class of dynamical systems. Active research in NLDR seeks to unfold the observation manifolds associated with dynamical systems to develop modeling techniques. Some of the more prominent nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques are listed below. == Important concepts == === Sammon's mapping === Sammon's mapping is one of the first and most popular NLDR techniques. === Self-organizing map === The self-organizing map (SOM, also called Kohonen map) and its probabilistic variant generative topographic mapping (GTM) use a point representation in the embedded space to form a latent variable model based on a non-linear mapping from the embedded space to the high-dimensional space. These techniques are related to work on density networks, which also are based around the same probabilistic model. === Kernel principal component analysis === Perhaps the most widely used algorithm for dimensional reduction is kernel PCA. PCA begins by computing the covariance matrix of the m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} matrix X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } C = 1 m ∑ i = 1 m x i x i T . {\displaystyle C={\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}{\mathbf {x} _{i}\mathbf {x} _{i}^{\mathsf {T}}}.} It then projects the data onto the first k eigenvectors of that matrix. By comparison, KPCA begins by computing the covariance matrix of the data after being transformed into a higher-dimensional space, C = 1 m ∑ i = 1 m Φ ( x i ) Φ ( x i ) T . {\displaystyle C={\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}{\Phi (\mathbf {x} _{i})\Phi (\mathbf {x} _{i})^{\mathsf {T}}}.} It then projects the transformed data onto the first k eigenvectors of that matrix, just like PCA. It uses the kernel trick to factor away much of the computation, such that the entire process can be performed without actually computing Φ ( x ) {\displaystyle \Phi (\mathbf {x} )} . Of course Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } must be chosen such that it has a known corresponding kernel. Unfortunately, it is not trivial to find a good kernel for a given problem, so KPCA does not yield good results with some problems when using standard kernels. For example, it is known to perform poorly with these kernels on the Swiss roll manifold. However, one can view certain other methods that perform well in such settings (e.g., Laplacian Eigenmaps, LLE) as special cases of kernel PCA by constructing a data-dependent kernel matrix. KPCA has an internal model, so it can be used to map points onto its embedding that were not available at training time. === Principal curves and manifolds === Principal curves and manifolds give the natural geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction and extend the geometric interpretation of PCA by explicitly constructing an embedded manifold, and by encoding using standard geometric projection onto the manifold. This approach was originally proposed by Trevor Hastie in his 1984 thesis, which he formally introduced in 1989. This idea has been explored further by many authors. How to define the "simplicity" of the manifold is problem-dependent, however, it is commonly measured by the intrinsic dimensionality and/or the smoothness of the manifold. Usually, the principal manifold is defined as a solution to an optimization problem. The objective function includes a quality of data approximation and some penalty terms for the bending of the manifold. The popular initial approximations are generated by linear PCA and Kohonen's SOM. === Laplacian eigenmaps === Laplacian eigenmaps uses spectral techniques to perform dimensionality reduction. This technique relies on the basic assumption that the data lies in a low-dimensional manifold in a high-dimensional space. This algorithm cannot embed out-of-sample points, but techniques based on Reproducing kernel Hilbert space regularization exist for adding this capability. Such techniques can be applied to other nonlinear dimensionality reduction algorithms as well. Traditional techniques like principal component analysis do not consider the intrinsic geometry of the data. Laplacian eigenmaps builds a graph from neighborhood information of the data set. Each data point serves as a node on the graph and connectivity between nodes is governed by the proximity of neighboring points (using e.g. the k-nearest neighbor algorithm). The graph thus generated can be considered as a discrete approximation of the low-dimensional manifold in the high-dimensional space. Minimization of a cost function based on the graph ensures that points close to each other on the manifold are mapped close to each other in the low-dimensional space, preserving local distances. The eigenfunctions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator on the manifold serve as the embedding dimensions, since under mild conditions this operator has a countable spectrum that is a basis for square integrable functions on the manifold (compare to Fourier series on the unit circle manifold). Attempts to place Laplacian eigenmaps on solid theoretical ground have met with some success, as under certain nonrestrictive assumptions, the graph Laplacian matrix has been shown to converge to the Laplace–Beltrami operator as the number of points goes to infinity. === Isomap === Isomap is a combination of the Floyd–Warshall algorithm with classic Multidimensional Scaling (MDS). Classic MDS takes a matrix of pair-wise distances between all points and computes a position for each point. Isomap assumes that the pair-wise distances are only known between neighboring points, and uses the Floyd–Warshall algorithm to compute the pair-wise distances between all other points. This effectively estimates the full matrix of pair-wise geodesic distances between all of the points. Isomap th
Read more →
The Santa Fe Trail problem is a genetic programming exercise in which artificial ants search for food pellets according to a programmed set of instructions. The layout of food pellets in the Santa Fe Trail problem has become a standard for comparing different genetic programming algorithms and solutions. One method for programming and testing algorithms on the Santa Fe Trail problem is by using the NetLogo application. There is at least one case of a student creating a Lego robotic ant to solve the problem.
Read more →
In machine learning and computational learning theory, LogitBoost is a boosting algorithm formulated by Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. The original paper casts the AdaBoost algorithm into a statistical framework. Specifically, if one considers AdaBoost as a generalized additive model and then applies the cost function of logistic regression, one can derive the LogitBoost algorithm. == Minimizing the LogitBoost cost function == LogitBoost can be seen as a convex optimization. Specifically, given that we seek an additive model of the form f = ∑ t α t h t {\displaystyle f=\sum _{t}\alpha _{t}h_{t}} the LogitBoost algorithm minimizes the logistic loss: ∑ i log ( 1 + e − y i f ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\log \left(1+e^{-y_{i}f(x_{i})}\right)}
Read more →
Shape tables are a feature of the Apple II ROMs which allows for manipulation of small images encoded as a series of vectors. An image (or shape) can be drawn in the high-resolution graphics mode—with scaling and rotation—via software routines in the ROM. Shape tables are supported via Applesoft BASIC and from machine code in the "Programmer's Aid" package that was bundled with the original Integer BASIC ROMs for that computer. Applesoft's high-resolution graphics routines were not optimized for speed, so shape tables were not typically used for performance-critical software such as games, which were typically written in assembly language and used pre-shifted bitmap shapes. Shape tables were used primarily for static shapes and sometimes for fancy text; Beagle Bros offered a number of fonts in Font Mechanic as Applesoft shape tables. == Technical details == The vectors of a two-dimensional graphic, each encoding a direction from the previous pixel along with a flag indicating whether the new pixel should be illuminated or not, were encoded up to three in a byte. These were stored in a table via the Monitor or the POKE command. From there, the graphic could be referenced by number (a table could contain up to 255 shapes), and built-in Applesoft routines permitted scaling, rotating, and drawing or erasing the shape. An XOR mode was also available to allow the shape to be visible on any color background; this had the advantage, also, of allowing the shape to be easily erased by redrawing it. Apple did not provide any utilities for creating shape tables; they had to be created by hand, usually by plotting on graph paper, then calculating the hexadecimal values and entering them into the computer. Beagle Bros created a shape table editing program, which eliminated the "number crunching", called Apple Mechanic, and a related program, Font Mechanic.
Read more →
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
Cultural algorithms (CA) are a branch of evolutionary computation where there is a knowledge component that is called the belief space in addition to the population component. In this sense, cultural algorithms can be seen as an extension to a conventional genetic algorithm. Cultural algorithms were introduced by Reynolds (see references). == Belief space == The belief space of a cultural algorithm is divided into distinct categories. These categories represent different domains of knowledge that the population has of the search space. The belief space is updated after each iteration by the best individuals of the population. The best individuals can be selected using a fitness function that assesses the performance of each individual in population much like in genetic algorithms. === List of belief space categories === Normative knowledge A collection of desirable value ranges for the individuals in the population component e.g. acceptable behavior for the agents in population. Domain specific knowledge Information about the domain of the cultural algorithm problem is applied to. Situational knowledge Specific examples of important events - e.g. successful/unsuccessful solutions Temporal knowledge History of the search space - e.g. the temporal patterns of the search process Spatial knowledge Information about the topography of the search space == Population == The population component of the cultural algorithm is approximately the same as that of the genetic algorithm. == Communication protocol == Cultural algorithms require an interface between the population and belief space. The best individuals of the population can update the belief space via the update function. Also, the knowledge categories of the belief space can affect the population component via the influence function. The influence function can affect population by altering the genome or the actions of the individuals. == Pseudocode for cultural algorithms == Initialize population space (choose initial population) Initialize belief space (e.g. set domain specific knowledge and normative value-ranges) Repeat until termination condition is met Perform actions of the individuals in population space Evaluate each individual by using the fitness function Select the parents to reproduce a new generation of offspring Let the belief space alter the genome of the offspring by using the influence function Update the belief space by using the accept function (this is done by letting the best individuals to affect the belief space) == Applications == Various optimization problems Social simulation Real-parameter optimization
Read more →
t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) is a statistical method for visualizing high-dimensional data by giving each datapoint a location in a two or three-dimensional map. It is based on Stochastic Neighbor Embedding originally developed by Geoffrey Hinton and Sam Roweis, where Laurens van der Maaten and Hinton proposed the t-distributed variant. It is a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique for embedding high-dimensional data for visualization in a low-dimensional space of two or three dimensions. Specifically, it models each high-dimensional object by a two- or three-dimensional point in such a way that similar objects are modeled by nearby points and dissimilar objects are modeled by distant points with high probability. The t-SNE algorithm comprises two main stages. First, t-SNE constructs a probability distribution over pairs of high-dimensional objects in such a way that similar objects are assigned a higher probability while dissimilar points are assigned a lower probability. Second, t-SNE defines a similar probability distribution over the points in the low-dimensional map, and it minimizes the Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL divergence) between the two distributions with respect to the locations of the points in the map. While the original algorithm uses the Euclidean distance between objects as the base of its similarity metric, this can be changed as appropriate. A Riemannian variant is UMAP. t-SNE has been used for visualization in a wide range of applications, including genomics, computer security research, natural language processing, music analysis, cancer research, bioinformatics, geological domain interpretation, and biomedical signal processing. For a data set with n {\displaystyle n} elements, t-SNE runs in O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} time and requires O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} space. == Details == Given a set of N {\displaystyle N} high-dimensional objects x 1 , … , x N {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {x} _{N}} , t-SNE first computes probabilities p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} that are proportional to the similarity of objects x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} and x j {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{j}} , as follows. For i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} , define p j ∣ i = exp ( − ‖ x i − x j ‖ 2 / 2 σ i 2 ) ∑ k ≠ i exp ( − ‖ x i − x k ‖ 2 / 2 σ i 2 ) {\displaystyle p_{j\mid i}={\frac {\exp(-\lVert \mathbf {x} _{i}-\mathbf {x} _{j}\rVert ^{2}/2\sigma _{i}^{2})}{\sum _{k\neq i}\exp(-\lVert \mathbf {x} _{i}-\mathbf {x} _{k}\rVert ^{2}/2\sigma _{i}^{2})}}} and set p i ∣ i = 0 {\displaystyle p_{i\mid i}=0} . Note the above denominator ensures ∑ j p j ∣ i = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}p_{j\mid i}=1} for all i {\displaystyle i} . As van der Maaten and Hinton explained: "The similarity of datapoint x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} to datapoint x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the conditional probability, p j | i {\displaystyle p_{j|i}} , that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} would pick x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} as its neighbor if neighbors were picked in proportion to their probability density under a Gaussian centered at x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} ." Now define p i j = p j ∣ i + p i ∣ j 2 N {\displaystyle p_{ij}={\frac {p_{j\mid i}+p_{i\mid j}}{2N}}} This is motivated because p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} and p j {\displaystyle p_{j}} from the N samples are estimated as 1/N, so the conditional probability can be written as p i ∣ j = N p i j {\displaystyle p_{i\mid j}=Np_{ij}} and p j ∣ i = N p j i {\displaystyle p_{j\mid i}=Np_{ji}} . Since p i j = p j i {\displaystyle p_{ij}=p_{ji}} , you can obtain previous formula. Also note that p i i = 0 {\displaystyle p_{ii}=0} and ∑ i , j p i j = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j}p_{ij}=1} . The bandwidth of the Gaussian kernels σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} is set in such a way that the entropy of the conditional distribution equals a predefined entropy using the bisection method. As a result, the bandwidth is adapted to the density of the data: smaller values of σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} are used in denser parts of the data space. The entropy increases with the perplexity of this distribution P i {\displaystyle P_{i}} ; this relation is seen as P e r p ( P i ) = 2 H ( P i ) {\displaystyle Perp(P_{i})=2^{H(P_{i})}} where H ( P i ) {\displaystyle H(P_{i})} is the Shannon entropy H ( P i ) = − ∑ j p j | i log 2 p j | i . {\displaystyle H(P_{i})=-\sum _{j}p_{j|i}\log _{2}p_{j|i}.} The perplexity is a hand-chosen parameter of t-SNE, and as the authors state, "perplexity can be interpreted as a smooth measure of the effective number of neighbors. The performance of SNE is fairly robust to changes in the perplexity, and typical values are between 5 and 50.". Since the Gaussian kernel uses the Euclidean distance ‖ x i − x j ‖ {\displaystyle \lVert x_{i}-x_{j}\rVert } , it is affected by the curse of dimensionality, and in high dimensional data when distances lose the ability to discriminate, the p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} become too similar (asymptotically, they would converge to a constant). It has been proposed to adjust the distances with a power transform, based on the intrinsic dimension of each point, to alleviate this. t-SNE aims to learn a d {\displaystyle d} -dimensional map y 1 , … , y N {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {y} _{N}} (with y i ∈ R d {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} and d {\displaystyle d} typically chosen as 2 or 3) that reflects the similarities p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} as well as possible. To this end, it measures similarities q i j {\displaystyle q_{ij}} between two points in the map y i {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{i}} and y j {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{j}} , using a very similar approach. Specifically, for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} , define q i j {\displaystyle q_{ij}} as q i j = ( 1 + ‖ y i − y j ‖ 2 ) − 1 ∑ k ∑ l ≠ k ( 1 + ‖ y k − y l ‖ 2 ) − 1 {\displaystyle q_{ij}={\frac {(1+\lVert \mathbf {y} _{i}-\mathbf {y} _{j}\rVert ^{2})^{-1}}{\sum _{k}\sum _{l\neq k}(1+\lVert \mathbf {y} _{k}-\mathbf {y} _{l}\rVert ^{2})^{-1}}}} and set q i i = 0 {\displaystyle q_{ii}=0} . Herein a heavy-tailed Student t-distribution (with one-degree of freedom, which is the same as a Cauchy distribution) is used to measure similarities between low-dimensional points in order to allow dissimilar objects to be modeled far apart in the map. The locations of the points y i {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{i}} in the map are determined by minimizing the (non-symmetric) Kullback–Leibler divergence of the distribution P {\displaystyle P} from the distribution Q {\displaystyle Q} , that is: K L ( P ∥ Q ) = ∑ i ≠ j p i j log p i j q i j {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} \left(P\parallel Q\right)=\sum _{i\neq j}p_{ij}\log {\frac {p_{ij}}{q_{ij}}}} The minimization of the Kullback–Leibler divergence with respect to the points y i {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{i}} is performed using gradient descent. The result of this optimization is a map that reflects the similarities between the high-dimensional inputs. == Output == While t-SNE plots often seem to display clusters, the visual clusters can be strongly influenced by the chosen parameterization (especially the perplexity) and so a good understanding of the parameters for t-SNE is needed. Such "clusters" can be shown to even appear in structured data with no clear clustering, and so may be false findings. Similarly, the size of clusters produced by t-SNE is not informative, and neither is the distance between clusters. Thus, interactive exploration may be needed to choose parameters and validate results. It has been shown that t-SNE can often recover well-separated clusters, and with special parameter choices, approximates a simple form of spectral clustering. == Software == A C++ implementation of Barnes-Hut is available on the github account of one of the original authors. The R package Rtsne implements t-SNE in R. ELKI contains tSNE, also with Barnes-Hut approximation scikit-learn, a popular machine learning library in Python implements t-SNE with both exact solutions and the Barnes-Hut approximation. Tensorboard, the visualization kit associated with TensorFlow, also implements t-SNE (online version) The Julia package TSne implements t-SNE
Read more →
Feature engineering is a preprocessing step in supervised machine learning and statistical modeling which transforms raw data into a more effective set of inputs. Each input comprises several attributes, known as features. By providing models with relevant information, feature engineering significantly enhances their predictive accuracy and decision-making capability. Beyond machine learning, the principles of feature engineering are applied in various scientific fields, including physics. For example, physicists construct dimensionless numbers such as the Reynolds number in fluid dynamics, the Nusselt number in heat transfer, and the Archimedes number in sedimentation. They also develop first approximations of solutions, such as analytical solutions for the strength of materials in mechanics. == Clustering == One of the applications of feature engineering has been clustering of feature-objects or sample-objects in a dataset. Especially, feature engineering based on matrix decomposition has been extensively used for data clustering under non-negativity constraints on the feature coefficients. These include Non-Negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), Non-Negative Matrix-Tri Factorization (NMTF), Non-Negative Tensor Decomposition/Factorization (NTF/NTD), etc. The non-negativity constraints on coefficients of the feature vectors mined by the above-stated algorithms yields a part-based representation, and different factor matrices exhibit natural clustering properties. Several extensions of the above-stated feature engineering methods have been reported in literature, including orthogonality-constrained factorization for hard clustering, and manifold learning to overcome inherent issues with these algorithms. Other classes of feature engineering algorithms include leveraging a common hidden structure across multiple inter-related datasets to obtain a consensus (common) clustering scheme. An example is Multi-view Classification based on Consensus Matrix Decomposition (MCMD), which mines a common clustering scheme across multiple datasets. MCMD is designed to output two types of class labels (scale-variant and scale-invariant clustering), and: is computationally robust to missing information, can obtain shape- and scale-based outliers, and can handle high-dimensional data effectively. Coupled matrix and tensor decompositions are popular in multi-view feature engineering. == Predictive modelling == Feature engineering in machine learning and statistical modeling involves selecting, creating, transforming, and extracting data features. Key components include feature creation from existing data, transforming and imputing missing or invalid features, reducing data dimensionality through methods like Principal Components Analysis (PCA), Independent Component Analysis (ICA), and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), and selecting the most relevant features for model training based on importance scores and correlation matrices. Features vary in significance. Even relatively insignificant features may contribute to a model. Feature selection can reduce the number of features to prevent a model from becoming too specific to the training data set (overfitting). Feature explosion occurs when the number of identified features is too large for effective model estimation or optimization. Common causes include: Feature templates - implementing feature templates instead of coding new features Feature combinations - combinations that cannot be represented by a linear system Feature explosion can be limited via techniques such as regularization, kernel methods, and feature selection. == Automation == Automation of feature engineering is a research topic that dates back to the 1990s. Machine learning software that incorporates automated feature engineering has been commercially available since 2016. Related academic literature can be roughly separated into two types: Multi-relational Decision Tree Learning (MRDTL) uses a supervised algorithm that is similar to a decision tree. Deep Feature Synthesis uses simpler methods. === Multi-relational Decision Tree Learning (MRDTL) === Multi-relational Decision Tree Learning (MRDTL) extends traditional decision tree methods to relational databases, handling complex data relationships across tables. It innovatively uses selection graphs as decision nodes, refined systematically until a specific termination criterion is reached. Most MRDTL studies base implementations on relational databases, which results in many redundant operations. These redundancies can be reduced by using techniques such as tuple id propagation. === Open-source implementations === There are a number of open-source libraries and tools that automate feature engineering on relational data and time series: featuretools is a Python library for transforming time series and relational data into feature matrices for machine learning. MCMD: An open-source feature engineering algorithm for joint clustering of multiple datasets. OneBM or One-Button Machine combines feature transformations and feature selection on relational data with feature selection techniques. OneBM helps data scientists reduce data exploration time allowing them to try and error many ideas in short time. On the other hand, it enables non-experts, who are not familiar with data science, to quickly extract value from their data with a little effort, time, and cost. getML community is an open source tool for automated feature engineering on time series and relational data. It is implemented in C/C++ with a Python interface. It has been shown to be at least 60 times faster than tsflex, tsfresh, tsfel, featuretools or kats. tsfresh is a Python library for feature extraction on time series data. It evaluates the quality of the features using hypothesis testing. tsflex is an open source Python library for extracting features from time series data. Despite being 100% written in Python, it has been shown to be faster and more memory efficient than tsfresh, seglearn or tsfel. seglearn is an extension for multivariate, sequential time series data to the scikit-learn Python library. tsfel is a Python package for feature extraction on time series data. kats is a Python toolkit for analyzing time series data. === Deep feature synthesis === The deep feature synthesis (DFS) algorithm beat 615 of 906 human teams in a competition. == Feature stores == The feature store is where the features are stored and organized for the explicit purpose of being used to either train models (by data scientists) or make predictions (by applications that have a trained model). It is a central location where you can either create or update groups of features created from multiple different data sources, or create and update new datasets from those feature groups for training models or for use in applications that do not want to compute the features but just retrieve them when it needs them to make predictions. A feature store includes the ability to store code used to generate features, apply the code to raw data, and serve those features to models upon request. Useful capabilities include feature versioning and policies governing the circumstances under which features can be used. Feature stores can be standalone software tools or built into machine learning platforms. == Alternatives == Feature engineering can be a time-consuming and error-prone process, as it requires domain expertise and often involves trial and error. Deep learning algorithms may be used to process a large raw dataset without having to resort to feature engineering. However, deep learning algorithms still require careful preprocessing and cleaning of the input data. In addition, choosing the right architecture, hyperparameters, and optimization algorithm for a deep neural network can be a challenging and iterative process.
Read more →
In computational learning theory, the teaching dimension of a concept class C is defined to be max c ∈ C { w C ( c ) } {\displaystyle \max _{c\in C}\{w_{C}(c)\}} , where w C ( c ) {\displaystyle {w_{C}(c)}} is the minimum size of a witness set for c in C. Intuitively, this measures the number of instances that are needed to identify a concept in the class, using supervised learning with examples provided by a helpful teacher who is trying to convey the concept as succinctly as possible. This definition was formulated in 1995 by Sally Goldman and Michael Kearns, based on earlier work by Goldman, Ron Rivest, and Robert Schapire. The teaching dimension of a finite concept class can be used to give a lower and an upper bound on the membership query cost of the concept class. In Stasys Jukna's book "Extremal Combinatorics", a lower bound is given for the teaching dimension in general: Let C be a concept class over a finite domain X. If the size of C is greater than 2 k ( | X | k ) , {\displaystyle 2^{k}{|X| \choose k},} then the teaching dimension of C is greater than k. However, there are more specific teaching models that make assumptions about teacher or learner, and can get lower values for the teaching dimension. For instance, several models are the classical teaching (CT) model, the optimal teacher (OT) model, recursive teaching (RT), preference-based teaching (PBT), and non-clashing teaching (NCT).
Read more →
Evolutionary algorithms (EA) reproduce essential elements of biological evolution in a computer algorithm in order to solve "difficult" problems, at least approximately, for which no exact or satisfactory solution methods are known. They are metaheuristics and population-based bio-inspired algorithms and evolutionary computation, which itself are part of the field of computational intelligence. The mechanisms of biological evolution that an EA mainly imitates are reproduction, mutation, recombination and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the quality of the solutions (see also loss function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape. Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolution (microevolutionary processes) and planning models based upon cellular processes. In most real applications of EAs, computational complexity is a prohibiting factor. In fact, this computational complexity is due to fitness function evaluation. Fitness approximation is one of the solutions to overcome this difficulty. However, seemingly simple EA can solve often complex problems; therefore, there may be no direct link between algorithm complexity and problem complexity. == Generic definition == The following is an example of a generic evolutionary algorithm: Randomly generate the initial population of individuals, the first generation. Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population. Check, if the goal is reached and the algorithm can be terminated. Select individuals as parents, preferably of higher fitness. Produce offspring with optional crossover (mimicking reproduction). Apply mutation operations on the offspring. Select individuals preferably of lower fitness for replacement with new individuals (mimicking natural selection). Return to 2 == Types == Similar techniques differ in genetic representation and other implementation details, and the nature of the particular applied problem. Genetic algorithm – This is the most popular type of EA. One seeks the solution of a problem in the form of strings of numbers (traditionally binary, although the best representations are usually those that reflect something about the problem being solved), by applying operators such as recombination and mutation (sometimes one, sometimes both). This type of EA is often used in optimization problems. Genetic programming – Here the solutions are in the form of computer programs, and their fitness is determined by their ability to solve a computational problem. There are many variants of Genetic Programming: Cartesian genetic programming Gene expression programming Grammatical evolution Linear genetic programming Multi expression programming Evolutionary programming – Similar to evolution strategy, but with a deterministic selection of all parents. Evolution strategy (ES) – Works with vectors of real numbers as representations of solutions, and typically uses self-adaptive mutation rates. The method is mainly used for numerical optimization, although there are also variants for combinatorial tasks. CMA-ES Natural evolution strategy Differential evolution – Based on vector differences and is therefore primarily suited for numerical optimization problems. Coevolutionary algorithm – Similar to genetic algorithms and evolution strategies, but the created solutions are compared on the basis of their outcomes from interactions with other solutions. Solutions can either compete or cooperate during the search process. Coevolutionary algorithms are often used in scenarios where the fitness landscape is dynamic, complex, or involves competitive interactions. Neuroevolution – Similar to genetic programming but the genomes represent artificial neural networks by describing structure and connection weights. The genome encoding can be direct or indirect. Learning classifier system – Here the solution is a set of classifiers (rules or conditions). A Michigan-LCS evolves at the level of individual classifiers whereas a Pittsburgh-LCS uses populations of classifier-sets. Initially, classifiers were only binary, but now include real, neural net, or S-expression types. Fitness is typically determined with either a strength or accuracy based reinforcement learning or supervised learning approach. Quality–Diversity algorithms – QD algorithms simultaneously aim for high-quality and diverse solutions. Unlike traditional optimization algorithms that solely focus on finding the best solution to a problem, QD algorithms explore a wide variety of solutions across a problem space and keep those that are not just high performing, but also diverse and unique. == Theoretical background == The following theoretical principles apply to all or almost all EAs. === No free lunch theorem === The no free lunch theorem of optimization states that all optimization strategies are equally effective when the set of all optimization problems is considered. Under the same condition, no evolutionary algorithm is fundamentally better than another. This can only be the case if the set of all problems is restricted. This is exactly what is inevitably done in practice. Therefore, to improve an EA, it must exploit problem knowledge in some form (e.g. by choosing a certain mutation strength or a problem-adapted coding). Thus, if two EAs are compared, this constraint is implied. In addition, an EA can use problem specific knowledge by, for example, not randomly generating the entire start population, but creating some individuals through heuristics or other procedures. Another possibility to tailor an EA to a given problem domain is to involve suitable heuristics, local search procedures or other problem-related procedures in the process of generating the offspring. This form of extension of an EA is also known as a memetic algorithm. Both extensions play a major role in practical applications, as they can speed up the search process and make it more robust. === Convergence === For EAs in which, in addition to the offspring, at least the best individual of the parent generation is used to form the subsequent generation (so-called elitist EAs), there is a general proof of convergence under the condition that an optimum exists. Without loss of generality, a maximum search is assumed for the proof: From the property of elitist offspring acceptance and the existence of the optimum it follows that per generation k {\displaystyle k} an improvement of the fitness F {\displaystyle F} of the respective best individual x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will occur with a probability P > 0 {\displaystyle P>0} . Thus: F ( x 1 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 2 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 3 ′ ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ F ( x k ′ ) ≤ ⋯ {\displaystyle F(x'_{1})\leq F(x'_{2})\leq F(x'_{3})\leq \cdots \leq F(x'_{k})\leq \cdots } I.e., the fitness values represent a monotonically non-decreasing sequence, which is bounded due to the existence of the optimum. From this follows the convergence of the sequence against the optimum. Since the proof makes no statement about the speed of convergence, it is of little help in practical applications of EAs. But it does justify the recommendation to use elitist EAs. However, when using the usual panmictic population model, elitist EAs tend to converge prematurely more than non-elitist ones. In a panmictic population model, mate selection (see step 4 of the generic definition) is such that every individual in the entire population is eligible as a mate. In non-panmictic populations, selection is suitably restricted, so that the dispersal speed of better individuals is reduced compared to panmictic ones. Thus, the general risk of premature convergence of elitist EAs can be significantly reduced by suitable population models that restrict mate selection. === Virtual alphabets === With the theory of virtual alphabets, David E. Goldberg showed in 1990 that by using a representation with real numbers, an EA that uses classical recombination operators (e.g. uniform or n-point crossover) cannot reach certain areas of the search space, in contrast to a coding with binary numbers. This results in the recommendation for EAs with real representation to use arithmetic operators for recombination (e.g. arithmetic mean or intermediate recombination). With suitable operators, real-valued representations are more effective than binary ones, contrary to earlier opinion. == Comparison to other concepts == === Biological processes === A possible limitation of many evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype–phenotype distinction. In nature, the fertilized egg cell undergoes a complex process known as embryogenesis to become a mature p
Read more →