AI Avatar Using Photo

AI Avatar Using Photo — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Record sealing

  Record sealing is the process of making public records inaccessible to the public. In many cases, a person with a sealed record gains the legal right to deny or not acknowledge anything to do with the arrest and the legal proceedings from the case itself. Records are commonly sealed in a number of situations: Sealed birth records (typically after adoption or determination of paternity) Juvenile criminal records may be sealed Other types of cases involving juveniles may be sealed, anonymized, or pseudonymized ("impounded"); e.g., child sex offense or custody cases Cases using witness protection information may be partly sealed Cases involving trade secrets Cases involving state secrets == Filing under seal in US court == Normally, records should not be filed under seal without a court permission. However, FRCP 5.2 requires that sensitive text – like Social Security number, Taxpayer Identification Number, birthday, bank accounts, and children’s names – should be redacted off the filings made with the court and accompanying exhibits. A person making a redacted filing can file an unredacted copy under seal, or the Court can choose to order later that an additional filing be made under seal without redaction. Alternately, the filing party may ask the court’s permission to file some exhibits completely under seal. When the document is filed "under seal", it should have a clear indication for the court clerk to file it separately – most often by stamping words "Filed Under Seal" on the bottom of each page. Person making filing should also provide instructions to the court clerk that the document needs to be filed "under seal". Courts often have specific requirements to these filings in their Local Rules. == Difference from expungement == Expungement, which is a physical destruction, namely a complete erasure of one's criminal records, and therefore usually carries a higher standard, differs from record sealing, which is only to restrict the public's access to records, so that only certain law enforcement agencies or courts, under special circumstances, will have access to them. A record seal will greatly improve the chance of employment, as employers will not have access to damning records. There are occasions, like expungement, where one can truthfully state under oath that they have never been convicted before. Most of the time, a record seal has more relaxed requirements than an expungement. If an expungement is not allowed with a case, then sealing a record may be the best bet. Different states have different terms for what constitutes sealing of a record. == Cybersecurity incidents involving sealed records == Several cybersecurity incidents have demonstrated that sealed court documents are not always secure in practice, with vulnerabilities and data breaches exposing sensitive information. In January 2021, following the SolarWinds cyber attack, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court United States District Court for the District of Nevada announced that its Case Management/Electronic Case Files CM/ECF system had been potentially compromised. The judiciary stated that additional safeguards were being implemented to protect filings, and that the review of the incident and its impact was ongoing. Reports noted that the breach raised concerns about exposure of highly sensitive and sealed documents submitted through the CM/ECF system. In 2023, security researcher Jason Parker, following a tip from an activist, identified flaws in online court systems that exposed sealed records including confidential testimony and medical records through publicly accessible portals. In 2024, a cyber intrusion targeting attorneys in a civil case involving Representative Matt Gaetz led to the unauthorized access and leak of sealed depositions and related records. The breach exposed confidential testimony and financial records, some of which were later reported by news outlets, raising concerns about the security of electronically stored legal materials and the handling of sealed filings. In 2025, multiple reports confirmed that the federal judiciary's CM/ECF and PACER (law) filing system was compromised, exposing sealed indictments, confidential informant information, and other sensitive filings. Some courts temporarily reverted to paper-based filing to mitigate the risks of further disclosure. The FBI later confirmed that the breach had exposed sealed records, and investigators suspected foreign state actors were involved. == GAO publications referencing sealed records == Closed Criminal Plea and Sentencing Proceedings (1983) – Reviewed Department of Justice policies on closing plea and sentencing hearings. GAO noted that sealed transcripts should be unsealed once the reasons for closure no longer applied. Information on Plea Agreements and Settlements in Defense Procurement Fraud Cases (1992) – Examined outcomes of procurement fraud prosecutions. GAO observed that in some instances the results were sealed from public access. Military Recruiting: More Needs to Be Done to Better Screen Applicants and Detect Fraud (1999) – Investigated fraudulent enlistments in the armed forces. The report highlighted that sealed juvenile records often prevented recruiters from discovering prior offenses. Social Security Numbers: Governments Could Do More to Reduce Display in Public Records (2004) – Analyzed risks associated with SSN availability in state and local records. GAO pointed out that some categories of records, such as adoption proceedings, were sealed and less likely to expose identifiers. Social Security Numbers: Stronger Safeguards Needed to Protect Privacy (2005 testimony) – Testimony before Congress reiterating concerns over SSN exposure in public records, while noting that sealed categories (e.g., adoption) were exceptions. U.S. Supreme Court: Policies and Perspectives on Video and Audio Coverage of Appellate Court Proceedings (2016) – Surveyed appellate court policies on courtroom media coverage. The report acknowledged distinctions between public filings, confidential submissions, and sealed materials. Evictions: National Data Are Limited and Challenging to Collect (2024) – Examined nationwide eviction data. GAO reported that in some states eviction records may be sealed or expunged, limiting researchers' ability to compile datasets. DOD Fraud Risk Management: Enhanced Data and Collaboration Could Improve Efforts (2024) – Reviewed Department of Defense fraud-risk management. GAO noted that some adjudicative records in its dataset were sealed, restricting completeness of oversight data.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial brain

  An artificial brain (or artificial mind) is software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain. Research investigating "artificial brains" and brain emulation plays three important roles in science: An ongoing attempt by neuroscientists to understand how the human brain works, known as cognitive neuroscience. A thought experiment in the philosophy of artificial intelligence, demonstrating that it is possible, at least in theory, to create a machine that has all the capabilities of a human being. A long-term project to create machines exhibiting behavior comparable to those of animals with complex central nervous system such as mammals and most particularly humans. The ultimate goal of creating a machine exhibiting human-like behavior or intelligence is sometimes called strong AI. An example of the first objective is the project reported by Aston University in Birmingham, England where researchers are using biological cells to create "neurospheres" (small clusters of neurons) in order to develop new treatments for diseases including Alzheimer's, motor neurone and Parkinson's disease. The second objective is a reply to arguments such as John Searle's Chinese room argument, Hubert Dreyfus's critique of AI or Roger Penrose's argument in The Emperor's New Mind. These critics argued that there are aspects of human consciousness or expertise that can not be simulated by machines. One reply to their arguments is that the biological processes inside the brain can be simulated to any degree of accuracy. This reply was made as early as 1950, by Alan Turing in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". The third objective is generally called artificial general intelligence by researchers. However, Ray Kurzweil prefers the term "strong AI". In his book The Singularity is Near, he focuses on whole brain emulation using conventional computing machines as an approach to implementing artificial brains, and claims (on grounds of computer power continuing an exponential growth trend) that this could be done by 2025. Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain project (which is attempting brain emulation), made a similar claim (2020) at the Oxford TED conference in 2009. == Approaches to brain simulation == W. Ross Ashby's pioneering work in cybernetics provided an early mathematical framework for understanding adaptive brain-like systems. In his 1952 book Design for a Brain, Ashby proposed that the brain could be modeled as an ultrastable system that maintains equilibrium through continuous adaptation to environmental perturbations. His approach used differential equations and state-space models to describe how neural systems could exhibit purposeful behavior through feedback mechanisms. Ashby's homeostat, a physical machine built in 1948, demonstrated these principles through an electromechanical device with four interconnected units that automatically adjusted their parameters to maintain stability when disturbed. The homeostat represented one of the first attempts to build an artificial system exhibiting brain-like adaptive behavior, influencing subsequent work in adaptive systems, neural networks, and artificial intelligence. Although direct human brain emulation using artificial neural networks on a high-performance computing engine is a commonly discussed approach, there are other approaches. An alternative artificial brain implementation could be based on Holographic Neural Technology (HNeT) non linear phase coherence/decoherence principles. The analogy has been made to quantum processes through the core synaptic algorithm which has strong similarities to the quantum mechanical wave equation. EvBrain is a form of evolutionary software that can evolve "brainlike" neural networks, such as the network immediately behind the retina. In November 2008, IBM received a US$4.9 million grant from the Pentagon for research into creating intelligent computers. The Blue Brain project is being conducted with the assistance of IBM in Lausanne. The project is based on the premise that it is possible to artificially link the neurons "in the computer" by placing thirty million synapses in their proper three-dimensional position. Some proponents of strong AI speculated in 2009 that computers in connection with Blue Brain and Soul Catcher may exceed human intellectual capacity by around 2015, and that it is likely that we will be able to download the human brain at some time around 2050. While Blue Brain is able to represent complex neural connections on the large scale, the project does not achieve the link between brain activity and behaviors executed by the brain. In 2012, project Spaun (Semantic Pointer Architecture Unified Network) attempted to model multiple parts of the human brain through large-scale representations of neural connections that generate complex behaviors in addition to mapping. Spaun's design recreates elements of human brain anatomy. The model, consisting of approximately 2.5 million neurons, includes features of the visual and motor cortices, GABAergic and dopaminergic connections, the ventral tegmental area (VTA), substantia nigra, and others. The design allows for several functions in response to eight tasks, using visual inputs of typed or handwritten characters and outputs carried out by a mechanical arm. Spaun's functions include copying a drawing, recognizing images, and counting. There are good reasons to believe that, regardless of implementation strategy, the predictions of realising artificial brains in the near future are optimistic. In particular brains (including the human brain) and cognition are not currently well understood, and the scale of computation required is unknown. Another near term limitation is that all current approaches for brain simulation require orders of magnitude larger power consumption compared with a human brain. The human brain consumes about 20 W of power, whereas current supercomputers may use as much as 1 MW—i.e., an order of 100,000 more. == Artificial brain thought experiment == Some critics of brain simulation believe that it is simpler to create general intelligent action directly without imitating nature. Some commentators have used the analogy that early attempts to construct flying machines modeled them after birds, but that modern aircraft do not look like birds.

  Read more →
• 

  Situated approach (artificial intelligence)

  In artificial intelligence research, the situated approach builds agents that are designed to behave effectively successfully in their environment. This requires designing AI "from the bottom-up" by focussing on the basic perceptual and motor skills required to survive. The situated approach gives a much lower priority to abstract reasoning or problem-solving skills. The approach was originally proposed as an alternative to traditional approaches (that is, approaches popular before 1985 or so). After several decades, classical AI technologies started to face intractable issues (e.g. combinatorial explosion) when confronted with real-world modeling problems. All approaches to address these issues focus on modeling intelligences situated in an environment. They have become known as the situated approach to AI. == Emergence of a concept == === From traditional AI to Nouvelle AI === During the late 1980s, the approach now known as Nouvelle AI (Nouvelle means new in French) was pioneered at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory by Rodney Brooks. As opposed to classical or traditional artificial intelligence, Nouvelle AI purposely avoided the traditional goal of modeling human-level performance, but rather tries to create systems with intelligence at the level of insects, closer to real-world robots. But eventually, at least at MIT new AI did lead to an attempt for humanoid AI in the Cog Project. === From Nouvelle AI to behavior-based and situated AI === The conceptual shift introduced by nouvelle AI flourished in the robotics area, given way to behavior-based robotics (BBR), a methodology for developing AI based on a modular decomposition of intelligence. It was made famous by Rodney Brooks: his subsumption architecture was one of the earliest attempts to describe a mechanism for developing BBAI. It is extremely popular in robotics and to a lesser extent to implement intelligent virtual agents because it allows the successful creation of real-time dynamic systems that can run in complex environments. For example, it underlies the intelligence of the Sony Aibo and many RoboCup robot teams. Realizing that in fact all these approaches were aiming at building not an abstract intelligence, but rather an intelligence situated in a given environment, they have come to be known as the situated approach. In fact, this approach stems out from early insights of Alan Turing, describing the need to build machines equipped with sense organs to learn directly from the real-world instead of focusing on abstract activities, such as playing chess. == Definitions == Classically, a software entity is defined as a simulated element, able to act on itself and on its environment, and which has an internal representation of itself and of the outside world. An entity can communicate with other entities, and its behavior is the consequence of its perceptions, its representations, and its interactions with the other entities. === AI loop === Simulating entities in a virtual environment requires simulating the entire process that goes from a perception of the environment, or more generally from a stimulus, to an action on the environment. This process is called the AI loop and technology used to simulate it can be subdivided in two categories. Sensorimotor or low-level AI deals with either the perception problem (what is perceived?) or the animation problem (how are actions executed?). Decisional or high-level AI deals with the action selection problem (what is the most appropriate action in response to a given perception, i.e. what is the most appropriate behavior?). === Traditional or symbolic AI === There are two main approaches in decisional AI. The vast majority of the technologies available on the market, such as planning algorithms, finite-state machines (FSA), or expert systems, are based on the traditional or symbolic AI approach. Its main characteristics are: It is top-down: it subdivides, in a recursive manner, a given problem into a series of sub-problems that are supposedly easier to solve. It is knowledge-based: it relies on a symbolic description of the world, such as a set of rules. However, the limits of traditional AI, which goal is to build systems that mimic human intelligence, are well-known: inevitably, a combinatorial explosion of the number of rules occurs due to the complexity of the environment. In fact, it is impossible to predict all the situations that will be encountered by an autonomous entity. === Situated or behavioral AI === In order to address these issues, another approach to decisional AI, also known as situated or behavioral AI, has been proposed. It does not attempt to model systems that produce deductive reasoning processes, but rather systems that behave realistically in their environment. The main characteristics of this approach are the following: It is bottom-up: it relies on elementary behaviors, which can be combined to implement more complex behaviors. It is behavior-based: it does not rely on a symbolic description of the environment, but rather on a model of the interactions of the entities with their environment. The goal of situated AI is to model entities that are autonomous in their environment. This is achieved thanks to both the intrinsic robustness of the control architecture, and its adaptation capabilities to unforeseen situations. === Situated agents === In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the term situated refers to an agent which is embedded in an environment. The term situated is commonly used to refer to robots, but some researchers argue that software agents can also be situated if: they exist in a dynamic (rapidly changing) environment, which they can manipulate or change through their actions, and which they can sense or perceive. Examples might include web-based agents, which can alter data or trigger processes (such as purchases) over the Internet, or virtual-reality bots which inhabit and change virtual worlds, such as Second Life. Being situated is generally considered to be part of being embodied, but it is useful to consider each perspective individually. The situated perspective emphasizes that intelligent behavior derives from the environment and the agent's interactions with it. The nature of these interactions are defined by an agent's embodiment. == Implementation principles == === Modular decomposition === The most important attribute of a system driven by situated AI is that the intelligence is controlled by a set of independent semi-autonomous modules. In the original systems, each module was actually a separate device or was at least conceived of as running on its own processing thread. Generally, though, the modules are just abstractions. In this respect, situated AI may be seen as a software engineering approach to AI, perhaps akin to object oriented design. Situated AI is often associated with reactive planning, but the two are not synonymous. Brooks advocated an extreme version of cognitive minimalism which required initially that the behavior modules were finite-state machines and thus contained no conventional memory or learning. This is associated with reactive AI because reactive AI requires reacting to the current state of the world, not to an agent's memory or preconception of that world. However, learning is obviously key to realistic strong AI, so this constraint has been relaxed, though not entirely abandoned. === Action selection mechanism === The situated AI community has presented several solutions to modeling decision-making processes, also known as action selection mechanisms. The first attempt to solve this problem goes back to subsumption architectures, which were in fact more an implementation technique than an algorithm. However, this attempt paved the way to several others, in particular the free-flow hierarchies and activation networks. A comparison of the structure and performances of these two mechanisms demonstrated the advantage of using free-flow hierarchies in solving the action selection problem. However, motor schemas and process description languages are two other approaches that have been used with success for autonomous robots. == Notes and references == Arsenio, Artur M. (2004) Towards an embodied and situated AI, In: Proceedings of the International FLAIRS conference, 2004. (online) The Artificial Life Route To Artificial Intelligence: Building Embodied, Situated Agents, Luc Steels and Rodney Brooks Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing, 1995. (ISBN 978-0805815184) Rodney A. Brooks Cambrian Intelligence (MIT Press, 1999) ISBN 0-262-52263-2; collection of early papers including "Intelligence without representation" and "Intelligence without reason", from 1986 & 1991 respectively. Ronald C. Arkin Behavior-Based Robotics (MIT Press, 1998) ISBN 0-262-01165-4 Hendriks-Jansen, Horst (1996) Catching Ourselves in the Act: Situated Activity, Interactive Emergence, Evolution, and Human Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  Read more →
• 

  Discovery system (artificial intelligence)

  A discovery system is an artificial intelligence system that attempts to discover new scientific concepts or laws. The aim of discovery systems is to automate scientific data analysis and the scientific discovery process. Ideally, an artificial intelligence system should be able to search systematically through the space of all possible hypotheses and yield the hypothesis - or set of equally likely hypotheses - that best describes the complex patterns in data. During the era known as the second AI summer (approximately 1978–1987), various systems akin to the era's dominant expert systems were developed to tackle the problem of extracting scientific hypotheses from data, with or without interacting with a human scientist. These systems included Autoclass, Automated Mathematician, Eurisko, which aimed at general-purpose hypothesis discovery, and more specific systems such as Dalton, which uncovers molecular properties from data. The dream of building systems that discover scientific hypotheses was pushed to the background with the second AI winter and the subsequent resurgence of subsymbolic methods such as neural networks. Subsymbolic methods emphasize prediction over explanation, and yield models which works well but are difficult or impossible to explain which has earned them the name black box AI. A black-box model cannot be considered a scientific hypothesis, and this development has even led some researchers to suggest that the traditional aim of science - to uncover hypotheses and theories about the structure of reality - is obsolete. Other researchers disagree and argue that subsymbolic methods are useful in many cases, just not for generating scientific theories. == Discovery systems from the 1970s and 1980s == Autoclass was a Bayesian Classification System written in 1986 Automated Mathematician was one of the earliest successful discovery systems. It was written in 1977 and worked by generating a modifying small Lisp programs Eurisko was a Sequel to Automated Mathematician written in 1984 Dalton is a still maintained program capable of calculating various molecular properties initially launched in 1983 and available in open source since 2017 Glauber is a scientific discovery method written in the context of computational philosophy of science launched in 1983 == Modern discovery systems (2009–present) == After a couple of decades with little interest in discovery systems, the interest in using AI to uncover natural laws and scientific explanations was renewed by the work of Michael Schmidt, then a PhD student in Computational Biology at Cornell University. Schmidt and his advisor, Hod Lipson, invented Eureqa, which they described as a symbolic regression approach to "distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data". This work effectively demonstrated that symbolic regression was a promising way forward for AI-driven scientific discovery. Since 2009, symbolic regression has matured further, and today, various commercial and open source systems are actively used in scientific research. Notable examples include Eureqa, now a part of DataRobot AI Cloud Platform, AI Feynman, and QLattice.

  Read more →
• 

  MetaMask

  MetaMask is a software cryptocurrency wallet developed by ConsenSys for interacting with the Ethereum blockchain and other EVM-compatible networks. It enables users to manage Ethereum accounts and connect to decentralized applications (dApps) via a browser extension or mobile app. As of early 2026, MetaMask reports over 100 million users worldwide. == Overview == MetaMask allows users to store and manage private keys, send and receive Ethereum-based cryptocurrencies and tokens (including ERC-20 and ERC-721 standards), broadcast transactions, and interact with dApps. dApps connect to the wallet via JavaScript interfaces, prompting users to approve signatures or transactions. The wallet features MetaMask Swaps, an in-app token swap aggregator sourcing liquidity from multiple decentralized exchanges (DEXs), with a service fee of 0.875%. In 2025, MetaMask introduced the MetaMask Rewards program (initially mobile-only), where users earn points for activities such as swaps, bridging, and referrals. Season 1 (October 2025 – January 2026) distributed over $30 million in Linea tokens and other perks to participants. == History == MetaMask launched in 2016 as open-source software under the MIT license. It initially supported browser extensions for Chrome and Firefox. Mobile versions were in closed beta from 2019 and publicly released for iOS and Android in September 2020. In August 2020, the license changed to a custom proprietary one. MetaMask Swaps launched on desktop in October 2020 and on mobile in March 2021. The Rewards program launched in late 2025 with Linea integration. == Criticism == MetaMask has faced criticism over privacy, including default analytics settings that share some user data (which can be disabled). Its reliance on Infura (acquired by ConsenSys in 2019) has raised concerns about centralization in Ethereum infrastructure. The wallet regularly issues warnings about phishing scams and fake airdrops impersonating MetaMask.

  Read more →
• 

  Stability (learning theory)

  Stability, also known as algorithmic stability, is a notion in computational learning theory of how a machine learning algorithm output is changed with small perturbations to its inputs. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the prediction does not change much when the training data is modified slightly. For instance, consider a machine learning algorithm that is being trained to recognize handwritten letters of the alphabet, using 1000 examples of handwritten letters and their labels ("A" to "Z") as a training set. One way to modify this training set is to leave out an example, so that only 999 examples of handwritten letters and their labels are available. A stable learning algorithm would produce a similar classifier with both the 1000-element and 999-element training sets. Stability can be studied for many types of learning problems, from language learning to inverse problems in physics and engineering, as it is a property of the learning process rather than the type of information being learned. The study of stability gained importance in computational learning theory in the 2000s when it was shown to have a connection with generalization. It was shown that for large classes of learning algorithms, notably empirical risk minimization algorithms, certain types of stability ensure good generalization. == History == A central goal in designing a machine learning system is to guarantee that the learning algorithm will generalize, or perform accurately on new examples after being trained on a finite number of them. In the 1990s, milestones were reached in obtaining generalization bounds for supervised learning algorithms. The technique historically used to prove generalization was to show that an algorithm was consistent, using the uniform convergence properties of empirical quantities to their means. This technique was used to obtain generalization bounds for the large class of empirical risk minimization (ERM) algorithms. An ERM algorithm is one that selects a solution from a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} in such a way to minimize the empirical error on a training set S {\displaystyle S} . A general result, proved by Vladimir Vapnik for an ERM binary classification algorithms, is that for any target function and input distribution, any hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} with VC-dimension d {\displaystyle d} , and n {\displaystyle n} training examples, the algorithm is consistent and will produce a training error that is at most O ( d n ) {\displaystyle O\left({\sqrt {\frac {d}{n}}}\right)} (plus logarithmic factors) from the true error. The result was later extended to almost-ERM algorithms with function classes that do not have unique minimizers. Vapnik's work, using what became known as VC theory, established a relationship between generalization of a learning algorithm and properties of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} of functions being learned. However, these results could not be applied to algorithms with hypothesis spaces of unbounded VC-dimension. Put another way, these results could not be applied when the information being learned had a complexity that was too large to measure. Some of the simplest machine learning algorithms—for instance, for regression—have hypothesis spaces with unbounded VC-dimension. Another example is language learning algorithms that can produce sentences of arbitrary length. Stability analysis was developed in the 2000s for computational learning theory and is an alternative method for obtaining generalization bounds. The stability of an algorithm is a property of the learning process, rather than a direct property of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} , and it can be assessed in algorithms that have hypothesis spaces with unbounded or undefined VC-dimension such as nearest neighbor. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the learned function does not change much when the training set is slightly modified, for instance by leaving out an example. A measure of Leave one out error is used in a Cross Validation Leave One Out (CVloo) algorithm to evaluate a learning algorithm's stability with respect to the loss function. As such, stability analysis is the application of sensitivity analysis to machine learning. == Summary of classic results == Early 1900s - Stability in learning theory was earliest described in terms of continuity of the learning map L {\displaystyle L} , traced to Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov. 1979 - Devroye and Wagner observed that the leave-one-out behavior of an algorithm is related to its sensitivity to small changes in the sample. 1999 - Kearns and Ron discovered a connection between finite VC-dimension and stability. 2002 - In a landmark paper, Bousquet and Elisseeff proposed the notion of uniform hypothesis stability of a learning algorithm and showed that it implies low generalization error. Uniform hypothesis stability, however, is a strong condition that does not apply to large classes of algorithms, including ERM algorithms with a hypothesis space of only two functions. 2002 - Kutin and Niyogi extended Bousquet and Elisseeff's results by providing generalization bounds for several weaker forms of stability which they called almost-everywhere stability. Furthermore, they took an initial step in establishing the relationship between stability and consistency in ERM algorithms in the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) setting. 2004 - Poggio et al. proved a general relationship between stability and ERM consistency. They proposed a statistical form of leave-one-out-stability which they called CVEEEloo stability, and showed that it is a) sufficient for generalization in bounded loss classes, and b) necessary and sufficient for consistency (and thus generalization) of ERM algorithms for certain loss functions such as the square loss, the absolute value and the binary classification loss. 2010 - Shalev Shwartz et al. noticed problems with the original results of Vapnik due to the complex relations between hypothesis space and loss class. They discuss stability notions that capture different loss classes and different types of learning, supervised and unsupervised. 2016 - Moritz Hardt et al. proved stability of gradient descent given certain assumption on the hypothesis and number of times each instance is used to update the model. == Preliminary definitions == We define several terms related to learning algorithms training sets, so that we can then define stability in multiple ways and present theorems from the field. A machine learning algorithm, also known as a learning map L {\displaystyle L} , maps a training data set, which is a set of labeled examples ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} , onto a function f {\displaystyle f} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} , where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} are in the same space of the training examples. The functions f {\displaystyle f} are selected from a hypothesis space of functions called H {\displaystyle H} . The training set from which an algorithm learns is defined as S = { z 1 = ( x 1 , y 1 ) , . . , z m = ( x m , y m ) } {\displaystyle S=\{z_{1}=(x_{1},\ y_{1})\ ,..,\ z_{m}=(x_{m},\ y_{m})\}} and is of size m {\displaystyle m} in Z = X × Y {\displaystyle Z=X\times Y} drawn i.i.d. from an unknown distribution D. Thus, the learning map L {\displaystyle L} is defined as a mapping from Z m {\displaystyle Z_{m}} into H {\displaystyle H} , mapping a training set S {\displaystyle S} onto a function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . Here, we consider only deterministic algorithms where L {\displaystyle L} is symmetric with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , i.e. it does not depend on the order of the elements in the training set. Furthermore, we assume that all functions are measurable and all sets are countable. The loss V {\displaystyle V} of a hypothesis f {\displaystyle f} with respect to an example z = ( x , y ) {\displaystyle z=(x,y)} is then defined as V ( f , z ) = V ( f ( x ) , y ) {\displaystyle V(f,z)=V(f(x),y)} . The empirical error of f {\displaystyle f} is I S [ f ] = 1 n ∑ V ( f , z i ) {\displaystyle I_{S}[f]={\frac {1}{n}}\sum V(f,z_{i})} . The true error of f {\displaystyle f} is I [ f ] = E z V ( f , z ) {\displaystyle I[f]=\mathbb {E} _{z}V(f,z)} Given a training set S of size m, we will build, for all i = 1....,m, modified training sets as follows: By removing the i-th element S | i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{|i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} By replacing the i-th element S i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i ′ , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i}',\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} == Definitions of stability == === Hypothesis Stability === An algorithm L {\displaystyle L} has hypothesis stability β with respect to the loss function V if the following holds: ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , m } , E S , z [ | V ( f S , z ) − V ( f S |

  Read more →
• 

  Nouvelle AI

  Nouvelle artificial intelligence (Nouvelle AI) is an approach to artificial intelligence pioneered in the 1980s by Rodney Brooks, who was then part of MIT artificial intelligence laboratory. Nouvelle AI differs from classical AI by aiming to produce robots with intelligence levels similar to insects. Researchers believe that intelligence can emerge organically from simple behaviors as these intelligences interacted with the "real world", instead of using the constructed worlds which symbolic AIs typically needed to have programmed into them. == Motivation == The differences between nouvelle AI and symbolic AI are apparent in early robots Shakey and Freddy. These robots contained an internal model (or "representation") of their micro-worlds consisting of symbolic descriptions. As a result, this structure of symbols had to be renewed as the robot moved or the world changed. Shakey's planning programs assessed the program structure and broke it down into the necessary steps to complete the desired action. This level of computation required a large amount time to process, so Shakey typically performed its tasks very slowly. Symbolic AI researchers had long been plagued by the problem of updating, searching, and otherwise manipulating the symbolic worlds inside their AIs. A nouvelle system refers continuously to its sensors rather than to an internal model of the world. It processes the external world information it needs from the senses when it is required. As Brooks puts it, "the world is its own best model--always exactly up to date and complete in every detail." A central idea of nouvelle AI is that simple behaviors combine to form more complex behaviors over time. For example, simple behaviors can include elements like "move forward" and "avoid obstacles." A robot using nouvelle AI with simple behaviors like collision avoidance and moving toward a moving object could possibly come together to produce a more complex behavior like chasing a moving object. === The frame problem === The frame problem describes an issue with using first-order logic (FOL) to express facts about a robot in the world. Representing the state of a robot with traditional FOL requires the use of many axioms (symbolic language) to imply that things about an environment do not change arbitrarily. Nouvelle AI seeks to sidestep the frame problem by dispensing with filling the AI or robot with volumes of symbolic language and instead letting more complex behaviors emerge by combining simpler behavioral elements. === Embodiment === The goal of traditional AI was to build intelligences without bodies, which would only have been able to interact with the world via keyboard, screen, or printer. However, nouvelle AI attempts to build embodied intelligence situated in the real world. Brooks quotes approvingly from the brief sketches that Turing gave in 1948 and 1950 of the "situated" approach. Turing wrote of equipping a machine "with the best sense organs that money can buy" and teaching it "to understand and speak English" by a process that would "follow the normal teaching of a child." This approach was contrasted to the others where they focused on abstract activities such as playing chess. == Brooks' robots == === Insectoid robots === Brooks focused on building robots that acted like simple insects while simultaneously working to remove some traditional AI characteristics. He created insect-like robots, named Allen and Herbert after cognitive science and AI pioneers Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Brooks's insectoid robots contained no internal models of the world. Herbert, for example, discarded a high volume of the information received from its sensors and never stored information for more than two seconds. ==== Allen ==== Allen had a ring of twelve ultrasonic sonars as its primary sensors and three independent behavior-producing modules. These modules were programmed to avoid both stationary and moving objects. With only this module activated, Allen stayed in the middle of a room until an object approached and then it ran away while avoiding obstacles in its way. ==== Herbert ==== Herbert used infrared sensors to avoid obstacles and a laser system to collect 3D data over a distance of about 12 feet. Herbert also carried a number of simple sensors in its "hand." The robot's testing ground was the real world environment of the busy offices and workspaces of the MIT AI lab where it searched for empty soda cans and carried them away, a seemingly goal-oriented activity that emerged as a result of 15 simple behavior units combining. As a parallel, Simon noted that an ant's complicated path is due to the structure of its environment rather than the depth of its thought processes. ==== Other insectoid robots ==== Other robots by Brooks' team were Genghis and Squirt. Genghis had six legs and was able to walk over rough terrain and follow a human. Squirt's behavior modules had it stay in dark corners until it heard a noise, then it would begin to follow the source of the noise. Brooks agreed that the level of nouvelle AI had come near the complexity of a real insect, which raised a question about whether or not insect level-behavior was and is a reasonable goal for nouvelle AI. === Humanoid robots === Brooks' own recent work has taken the opposite direction to that proposed by Von Neumann in the quotations "theorists who select the human nervous system as their model are unrealistically picking 'the most complicated object under the sun,' and that there is little advantage in selecting instead the ant, since any nervous system at all exhibits exceptional complexity." ==== Cog ==== In the 1990s, Brooks decided to pursue the goal of human-level intelligence and, with Lynn Andrea Stein, built a humanoid robot called Cog. Cog is a robot with an extensive collection of sensors, a face, and arms (among other features) that allow it to interact with the world and gather information and experience so as to assemble intelligence organically in the manner described above by Turing. The team believed that Cog would be able to learn and able to find a correlation between the sensory information it received and its actions, and to learn common sense knowledge on its own. As of 2003, all development of the project had ceased.

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic epistemic logic

  Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov

  Read more →
• 

  Matrix regularization

  In the field of statistical learning theory, matrix regularization generalizes notions of vector regularization to cases where the object to be learned is a matrix. The purpose of regularization is to enforce conditions, for example sparsity or smoothness, that can produce stable predictive functions. For example, in the more common vector framework, Tikhonov regularization optimizes over min x ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 + λ ‖ x ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \min _{x}\left\|Ax-y\right\|^{2}+\lambda \left\|x\right\|^{2}} to find a vector x {\displaystyle x} that is a stable solution to the regression problem. When the system is described by a matrix rather than a vector, this problem can be written as min X ‖ A X − Y ‖ 2 + λ ‖ X ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle \min _{X}\left\|AX-Y\right\|^{2}+\lambda \left\|X\right\|^{2},} where the vector norm enforcing a regularization penalty on x {\displaystyle x} has been extended to a matrix norm on X {\displaystyle X} . Matrix regularization has applications in matrix completion, multivariate regression, and multi-task learning. Ideas of feature and group selection can also be extended to matrices, and these can be generalized to the nonparametric case of multiple kernel learning. == Basic definition == Consider a matrix W {\displaystyle W} to be learned from a set of examples, S = ( X i t , y i t ) {\displaystyle S=(X_{i}^{t},y_{i}^{t})} , where i {\displaystyle i} goes from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to n {\displaystyle n} , and t {\displaystyle t} goes from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to T {\displaystyle T} . Let each input matrix X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} be ∈ R D T {\displaystyle \in \mathbb {R} ^{DT}} , and let W {\displaystyle W} be of size D × T {\displaystyle D\times T} . A general model for the output y {\displaystyle y} can be posed as y i t = ⟨ W , X i t ⟩ F , {\displaystyle y_{i}^{t}=\left\langle W,X_{i}^{t}\right\rangle _{F},} where the inner product is the Frobenius inner product. For different applications the matrices X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} will have different forms, but for each of these the optimization problem to infer W {\displaystyle W} can be written as min W ∈ H E ( W ) + R ( W ) , {\displaystyle \min _{W\in {\mathcal {H}}}E(W)+R(W),} where E {\displaystyle E} defines the empirical error for a given W {\displaystyle W} , and R ( W ) {\displaystyle R(W)} is a matrix regularization penalty. The function R ( W ) {\displaystyle R(W)} is typically chosen to be convex and is often selected to enforce sparsity (using ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norms) and/or smoothness (using ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell ^{2}} -norms). Finally, W {\displaystyle W} is in the space of matrices H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} with Frobenius inner product ⟨ … ⟩ F {\displaystyle \langle \dots \rangle _{F}} . == General applications == === Matrix completion === In the problem of matrix completion, the matrix X i t {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}} takes the form X i t = e t ⊗ e i ′ , {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes e_{i}',} where ( e t ) t {\displaystyle (e_{t})_{t}} and ( e i ′ ) i {\displaystyle (e_{i}')_{i}} are the canonical basis in R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} and R D {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{D}} . In this case the role of the Frobenius inner product is to select individual elements w i t {\displaystyle w_{i}^{t}} from the matrix W {\displaystyle W} . Thus, the output y {\displaystyle y} is a sampling of entries from the matrix W {\displaystyle W} . The problem of reconstructing W {\displaystyle W} from a small set of sampled entries is possible only under certain restrictions on the matrix, and these restrictions can be enforced by a regularization function. For example, it might be assumed that W {\displaystyle W} is low-rank, in which case the regularization penalty can take the form of a nuclear norm. R ( W ) = λ ‖ W ‖ ∗ = λ ∑ i | σ i | , {\displaystyle R(W)=\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{}=\lambda \sum _{i}\left|\sigma _{i}\right|,} where σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} , with i {\displaystyle i} from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to min D , T {\displaystyle \min D,T} , are the singular values of W {\displaystyle W} . === Multivariate regression === Models used in multivariate regression are parameterized by a matrix of coefficients. In the Frobenius inner product above, each matrix X {\displaystyle X} is X i t = e t ⊗ x i {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes x_{i}} such that the output of the inner product is the dot product of one row of the input with one column of the coefficient matrix. The familiar form of such models is Y = X W + b {\displaystyle Y=XW+b} Many of the vector norms used in single variable regression can be extended to the multivariate case. One example is the squared Frobenius norm, which can be viewed as an ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell ^{2}} -norm acting either entrywise, or on the singular values of the matrix: R ( W ) = λ ‖ W ‖ F 2 = λ ∑ i ∑ j | w i j | 2 = λ Tr ⁡ ( W ∗ W ) = λ ∑ i σ i 2 . {\displaystyle R(W)=\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{F}^{2}=\lambda \sum _{i}\sum _{j}\left|w_{ij}\right|^{2}=\lambda \operatorname {Tr} \left(W^{}W\right)=\lambda \sum _{i}\sigma _{i}^{2}.} In the multivariate case the effect of regularizing with the Frobenius norm is the same as the vector case; very complex models will have larger norms, and, thus, will be penalized more. === Multi-task learning === The setup for multi-task learning is almost the same as the setup for multivariate regression. The primary difference is that the input variables are also indexed by task (columns of Y {\displaystyle Y} ). The representation with the Frobenius inner product is then X i t = e t ⊗ x i t . {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes x_{i}^{t}.} The role of matrix regularization in this setting can be the same as in multivariate regression, but matrix norms can also be used to couple learning problems across tasks. In particular, note that for the optimization problem min W ‖ X W − Y ‖ 2 2 + λ ‖ W ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{W}\left\|XW-Y\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{2}^{2}} the solutions corresponding to each column of Y {\displaystyle Y} are decoupled. That is, the same solution can be found by solving the joint problem, or by solving an isolated regression problem for each column. The problems can be coupled by adding an additional regularization penalty on the covariance of solutions min W , Ω ‖ X W − Y ‖ 2 2 + λ 1 ‖ W ‖ 2 2 + λ 2 Tr ⁡ ( W T Ω − 1 W ) {\displaystyle \min _{W,\Omega }\left\|XW-Y\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{1}\left\|W\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{2}\operatorname {Tr} \left(W^{T}\Omega ^{-1}W\right)} where Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } models the relationship between tasks. This scheme can be used to both enforce similarity of solutions across tasks, and to learn the specific structure of task similarity by alternating between optimizations of W {\displaystyle W} and Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . When the relationship between tasks is known to lie on a graph, the Laplacian matrix of the graph can be used to couple the learning problems. == Spectral regularization == Regularization by spectral filtering has been used to find stable solutions to problems such as those discussed above by addressing ill-posed matrix inversions (see for example Filter function for Tikhonov regularization). In many cases the regularization function acts on the input (or kernel) to ensure a bounded inverse by eliminating small singular values, but it can also be useful to have spectral norms that act on the matrix that is to be learned. There are a number of matrix norms that act on the singular values of the matrix. Frequently used examples include the Schatten p-norms, with p = 1 or 2. For example, matrix regularization with a Schatten 1-norm, also called the nuclear norm, can be used to enforce sparsity in the spectrum of a matrix. This has been used in the context of matrix completion when the matrix in question is believed to have a restricted rank. In this case the optimization problem becomes: min ‖ W ‖ ∗ subject to W i , j = Y i j . {\displaystyle \min \left\|W\right\|_{}~~{\text{ subject to }}~~W_{i,j}=Y_{ij}.} Spectral Regularization is also used to enforce a reduced rank coefficient matrix in multivariate regression. In this setting, a reduced rank coefficient matrix can be found by keeping just the top n {\displaystyle n} singular values, but this can be extended to keep any reduced set of singular values and vectors. == Structured sparsity == Sparse optimization has become the focus of much research interest as a way to find solutions that depend on a small number of variables (see e.g. the Lasso method). In principle, entry-wise sparsity can be enforced by penalizing the entry-wise ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell ^{0}} -norm of the matrix, but the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell ^{0}} -norm is not convex. In practice this can be implemented by convex relaxation to the ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norm. While entry-wise regularization with an ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norm will find solutions with a small number of nonzero elements, applying an ℓ 1 {

  Read more →
• 

  Multimodal representation learning

  Multimodal representation learning is a subfield of representation learning focused on integrating and interpreting information from different modalities, such as text, images, audio, or video, by projecting them into a shared latent space. This allows for semantically similar content across modalities to be mapped to nearby points within that space, facilitating a unified understanding of diverse data types. By automatically learning meaningful features from each modality and capturing their inter-modal relationships, multimodal representation learning enables a unified representation that enhances performance in cross-media analysis tasks such as video classification, event detection, and sentiment analysis. It also supports cross-modal retrieval and translation, including image captioning, video description, and text-to-image synthesis. == Motivation == The primary motivations for multimodal representation learning arise from the inherent nature of real-world data and the limitations of unimodal approaches. Since multimodal data offers complementary and supplementary information about an object or event from different perspectives, it is more informative than relying on a single modality. A key motivation is to narrow the heterogeneity gap that exists between different modalities by projecting their features into a shared semantic subspace. This allows semantically similar content across modalities to be represented by similar vectors, facilitating the understanding of relationships and correlations between them. Multimodal representation learning aims to leverage the unique information provided by each modality to achieve a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of concepts. These unified representations are crucial for improving performance in various cross-media analysis tasks such as video classification, event detection, and sentiment analysis. They also enable cross-modal retrieval, allowing users to search and retrieve content across different modalities. Additionally, it facilitates cross-modal translation, where information can be converted from one modality to another, as seen in applications like image captioning and text-to-image synthesis. The abundance of ubiquitous multimodal data in real-world applications, including understudied areas like healthcare, finance, and human-computer interaction (HCI), further motivates the development of effective multimodal representation learning techniques. == Approaches and methods == === Canonical-correlation analysis based methods === Canonical-correlation analysis (CCA) was first introduced in 1936 by Harold Hotelling and is a fundamental approach for multimodal learning. CCA aims to find linear relationships between two sets of variables. Given two data matrices X ∈ R n × p {\displaystyle X\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times p}} and Y ∈ R n × q {\displaystyle Y\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times q}} representing different modalities, CCA finds projection vectors w x ∈ R p {\displaystyle w_{x}\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} and w y ∈ R q {\displaystyle w_{y}\in \mathbb {R} ^{q}} that maximizes the correlation between the projected variables: ρ = max w x , w y w x ⊤ Σ x y w y w x ⊤ Σ x x w x w y ⊤ Σ y y w y {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{w_{x},w_{y}}{\frac {w_{x}^{\top }\Sigma _{xy}w_{y}}{{\sqrt {w_{x}^{\top }\Sigma _{xx}w_{x}}}{\sqrt {w_{y}^{\top }\Sigma _{yy}w_{y}}}}}} such that Σ x x {\displaystyle \Sigma _{xx}} and Σ y y {\displaystyle \Sigma _{yy}} are the within-modality covariance matrices, and Σ x y {\displaystyle \Sigma _{xy}} is the between-modality covariance matrix. However, standard CCA is limited by its linearity, which led to the development of nonlinear extensions, such as kernel CCA and deep CCA. ==== Kernel CCA ==== Kernel canonical correlation analysis (KCCA) extends traditional CCA to capture nonlinear relationships between modalities by implicitly mapping the data into high dimensional feature spaces using kernel functions. Given kernel functions K x {\displaystyle K_{x}} and K y {\displaystyle K_{y}} with corresponding Gram matrices K x ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle K_{x}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} and K y ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle K_{y}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} , KCCA seeks coefficients α {\displaystyle \alpha } and β {\displaystyle \beta } that maximize: ρ = max α , β α ⊤ K x K y β α ⊤ K x 2 α β ⊤ K y 2 β {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{\alpha ,\beta }{\frac {\alpha ^{\top }K_{x}Ky\beta }{{\sqrt {\alpha ^{\top }K_{x}^{2}\alpha }}{\sqrt {\beta ^{\top }K_{y}^{2}\beta }}}}} To prevent overfitting, regularization terms are typically added, resulting in: ρ = max α , β α T K x K y β α T ( K x 2 + λ x K x ) α β T ( K y 2 + λ y K y ) β {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{\alpha ,\beta }{\frac {\alpha ^{T}K_{x}K_{y}\beta }{{\sqrt {\alpha ^{T}\left(K_{x}^{2}+\lambda _{x}K_{x}\right)\alpha }}{\sqrt {\;\beta ^{T}\left(K_{y}^{2}+\lambda _{y}K_{y}\right)\beta }}}}} where λ x {\displaystyle \lambda _{x}} and λ y {\displaystyle \lambda _{y}} are regularization parameters. KCCA has proven effective for tasks such as cross-modal retrieval and semantic analysis, though it faces computational challenges with large datasets due to its O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} memory requirement for sorting kernel matrices. KCCA was proposed independently by several researchers. ==== Deep CCA ==== Deep canonical correlation analysis (DCCA), introduced in 2013, employs neural networks to learn nonlinear transformations for maximizing the correlation between modalities. DCCA uses separate neural networks f x {\displaystyle f_{x}} and f y {\displaystyle f_{y}} for each modality to transform the original data before applying CCA: max W x , W y , θ x , θ y corr ⁡ ( f x ( X ; θ x ) , f y ( Y ; θ y ) ) {\displaystyle \max _{W_{x},W_{y},\theta _{x},\theta _{y}}\operatorname {corr} \left(f_{x}(X;\theta _{x}),f_{y}(Y;\theta _{y})\right)} where θ x {\displaystyle \theta _{x}} and θ y {\displaystyle \theta _{y}} represent the parameters of the neural networks, and W x {\displaystyle W_{x}} and W y {\displaystyle W_{y}} are the CCA projection matrices. The correlation objective is computed as: corr ⁡ ( H x , H y ) = tr ⁡ ( T − 1 / 2 H x T H y S − 1 / 2 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {corr} (H_{x},H_{y})=\operatorname {tr} \left(T^{-1/2}H_{x}^{T}H_{y}S^{-1/2}\right)} where H x = f x ( X ) {\displaystyle H_{x}=f_{x}(X)} and H y = f y ( Y ) {\displaystyle H_{y}=f_{y}(Y)} are the network outputs, T = H x T H x + r x I {\displaystyle T=H_{x}^{T}H_{x}+r_{x}I} , S = H y T H y + r y I {\displaystyle S=H_{y}^{T}H_{y}+r_{y}I} and r x , r y {\displaystyle r_{x},r_{y}} are the regularization parameters. DCCA overcomes the limitations of linear CCA and kernel CCA by learning complex nonlinear relationships while maintaining computational efficiency for large datasets through mini-batch optimization. === Graph-based methods === Graph-based approaches for multimodal representation learning leverage graph structure to model relationships between entities across different modalities. These methods typically represent each modality as a graph and then learn embedding that preserve cross-modal similarities, enabling more effective joint representation of heterogeneous data. One such method is cross-modal graph neural networks (CMGNNs) that extend traditional graph neural networks (GNNs) to handle data from multiple modalities by constructing graphs that capture both intra-modal and inter-modal relationships. These networks model interactions across modalities by representing them as nodes and their relationships as edges. Other graph-based methods include Probabilistic Graphical Models (PGMs) such as deep belief networks (DBN) and deep Boltzmann machines (DBM). These models can learn a joint representation across modalities, for instance, a multimodal DBN achieves this by adding a shared restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM) hidden layer on top of modality-specific DBNs. Additionally, the structure of data in some domains like Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), such as the view hierarchy of app screens, can potentially be modeled using graph-like structures. The field of graph representation learning is also relevant, with ongoing progress in developing evaluation benchmarks. === Diffusion maps === Another set of methods relevant to multimodal representation learning are based on diffusion maps and their extensions to handle multiple modalities. ==== Multi-view diffusion maps ==== Multi-view diffusion maps address the challenge of achieving multi-view dimensionality reduction by effectively utilizing the availability of multiple views to extract a coherent low-dimensional representation of the data. The core idea is to exploit both the intrinsic relations within each view and the mutual relations between the different views, defining a cross-view model where a random walk process implicitly hops between objects in different views. A multi-view kernel matrix is constructed by combining these relations, defining a cross-view diffusion process and associ

  Read more →
• 

  Statistical learning theory

  Statistical learning theory is a framework for machine learning drawing from the fields of statistics and functional analysis. Statistical learning theory deals with the statistical inference problem of finding a predictive function based on data. Statistical learning theory has led to successful applications in fields such as computer vision, speech recognition, and bioinformatics. == Introduction == The goals of learning are understanding and prediction. Learning falls into many categories, including supervised learning, unsupervised learning, online learning, and reinforcement learning. From the perspective of statistical learning theory, supervised learning is best understood. Supervised learning involves learning from a training set of data. Every point in the training is an input–output pair, where the input maps to an output. The learning problem consists of inferring the function that maps between the input and the output, such that the learned function can be used to predict the output from future input. Depending on the type of output, supervised learning problems are either problems of regression or problems of classification. If the output takes a continuous range of values, it is a regression problem. Using Ohm's law as an example, a regression could be performed with voltage as input and current as an output. The regression would find the functional relationship between voltage and current to be R {\displaystyle R} , such that V = I R {\displaystyle V=IR} Classification problems are those for which the output will be an element from a discrete set of labels. Classification is very common for machine learning applications. In facial recognition, for instance, a picture of a person's face would be the input, and the output label would be that person's name. The input would be represented by a large multidimensional vector whose elements represent pixels in the picture. After learning a function based on the training set data, that function is validated on a test set of data, data that did not appear in the training set. == Formal description == Take X {\displaystyle X} to be the vector space of all possible inputs, and Y {\displaystyle Y} to be the vector space of all possible outputs. Statistical learning theory takes the perspective that there is some unknown probability distribution over the product space Z = X × Y {\displaystyle Z=X\times Y} , i.e. there exists some unknown p ( z ) = p ( x , y ) {\displaystyle p(z)=p(\mathbf {x} ,y)} . The training set is made up of n {\displaystyle n} samples from this probability distribution, and is notated S = { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } = { z 1 , … , z n } {\displaystyle S=\{(\mathbf {x} _{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(\mathbf {x} _{n},y_{n})\}=\{\mathbf {z} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {z} _{n}\}} Every x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} is an input vector from the training data, and y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is the output that corresponds to it. In this formalism, the inference problem consists of finding a function f : X → Y {\displaystyle f:X\to Y} such that f ( x ) ∼ y {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )\sim y} . Let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be a space of functions f : X → Y {\displaystyle f:X\to Y} called the hypothesis space. The hypothesis space is the space of functions the algorithm will search through. Let V ( f ( x ) , y ) {\displaystyle V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)} be the loss function, a metric for the difference between the predicted value f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} and the actual value y {\displaystyle y} . The expected risk is defined to be I [ f ] = ∫ X × Y V ( f ( x ) , y ) p ( x , y ) d x d y {\displaystyle I[f]=\int _{X\times Y}V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)\,p(\mathbf {x} ,y)\,d\mathbf {x} \,dy} The target function, the best possible function f {\displaystyle f} that can be chosen, is given by the f {\displaystyle f} that satisfies f = argmin h ∈ H ⁡ I [ h ] {\displaystyle f=\mathop {\operatorname {argmin} } _{h\in {\mathcal {H}}}I[h]} Because the probability distribution p ( x , y ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} ,y)} is unknown, a proxy measure for the expected risk must be used. This measure is based on the training set, a sample from this unknown probability distribution. It is called the empirical risk I S [ f ] = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) {\displaystyle I_{S}[f]={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(f(\mathbf {x} _{i}),y_{i})} A learning algorithm that chooses the function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} that minimizes the empirical risk is called empirical risk minimization. == Loss functions == The choice of loss function is a determining factor on the function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} that will be chosen by the learning algorithm. The loss function also affects the convergence rate for an algorithm. It is important for the loss function to be convex. Different loss functions are used depending on whether the problem is one of regression or one of classification. === Regression === The most common loss function for regression is the square loss function (also known as the L2-norm). This familiar loss function is used in Ordinary Least Squares regression. The form is: V ( f ( x ) , y ) = ( y − f ( x ) ) 2 {\displaystyle V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)=(y-f(\mathbf {x} ))^{2}} The absolute value loss (also known as the L1-norm) is also sometimes used: V ( f ( x ) , y ) = | y − f ( x ) | {\displaystyle V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)=|y-f(\mathbf {x} )|} === Classification === In some sense the 0-1 indicator function is the most natural loss function for classification. It takes the value 0 if the predicted output is the same as the actual output, and it takes the value 1 if the predicted output is different from the actual output. For binary classification with Y = { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle Y=\{-1,1\}} , this is: V ( f ( x ) , y ) = θ ( − y f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle V(f(\mathbf {x} ),y)=\theta (-yf(\mathbf {x} ))} where θ {\displaystyle \theta } is the Heaviside step function. == Regularization == In machine learning problems, a major problem that arises is that of overfitting. Because learning is a prediction problem, the goal is not to find a function that most closely fits the (previously observed) data, but to find one that will most accurately predict output from future input. Empirical risk minimization runs this risk of overfitting: finding a function that matches the data exactly but does not predict future output well. Overfitting is symptomatic of unstable solutions; a small perturbation in the training set data would cause a large variation in the learned function. It can be shown that if the stability for the solution can be guaranteed, generalization and consistency are guaranteed as well. Regularization can solve the overfitting problem and give the problem stability. Regularization can be accomplished by restricting the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . A common example would be restricting H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} to linear functions: this can be seen as a reduction to the standard problem of linear regression. H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} could also be restricted to polynomial of degree p {\displaystyle p} , exponentials, or bounded functions on L1. Restriction of the hypothesis space avoids overfitting because the form of the potential functions are limited, and so does not allow for the choice of a function that gives empirical risk arbitrarily close to zero. One example of regularization is Tikhonov regularization. This consists of minimizing 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ ‖ f ‖ H 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(f(\mathbf {x} _{i}),y_{i})+\gamma \left\|f\right\|_{\mathcal {H}}^{2}} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is a fixed and positive parameter, the regularization parameter. Tikhonov regularization ensures existence, uniqueness, and stability of the solution. == Bounding empirical risk == Consider a binary classifier f : X → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{0,1\}} . We can apply Hoeffding's inequality to bound the probability that the empirical risk deviates from the true risk to be a Sub-Gaussian distribution. P ( | R ^ ( f ) − R ( f ) | ≥ ϵ ) ≤ 2 e − 2 n ϵ 2 {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} (|{\hat {R}}(f)-R(f)|\geq \epsilon )\leq 2e^{-2n\epsilon ^{2}}} But generally, when we do empirical risk minimization, we are not given a classifier; we must choose it. Therefore, a more useful result is to bound the probability of the supremum of the difference over the whole class. P ( sup f ∈ F | R ^ ( f ) − R ( f ) | ≥ ϵ ) ≤ 2 S ( F , n ) e − n ϵ 2 / 8 ≈ n d e − n ϵ 2 / 8 {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} {\bigg (}\sup _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}|{\hat {R}}(f)-R(f)|\geq \epsilon {\bigg )}\leq 2S({\mathcal {F}},n)e^{-n\epsilon ^{2}/8}\approx n^{d}e^{-n\epsilon ^{2}/8}} where S ( F , n ) {\displaystyle S({\mathcal {F}},n)} is the shattering number and n {\displaystyle n} is the number of samples in your dataset. The exponential term comes from Hoeffding but there is an extra cost of taking the supremum over the whole cla

  Read more →
• 

  Double descent

  Double descent in statistics and machine learning is the phenomenon where a model's error rate on the test set initially decreases with the number of parameters, then peaks, then decreases again. This phenomenon has been considered surprising, as it contradicts assumptions about overfitting in classical machine learning. The increase usually occurs near the interpolation threshold, where the number of parameters is the same as the number of training data points (the model is just large enough to fit the training data). Or, more precisely, it is the maximum number of samples on which the model/training procedure achieves approximately on average 0 training error. == History == Early observations of what would later be called double descent in specific models date back to 1989. The term "double descent" was coined by Belkin et. al. in 2019, when the phenomenon gained popularity as a broader concept exhibited by many models. The latter development was prompted by a perceived contradiction between the conventional wisdom that too many parameters in the model result in a significant overfitting error (an extrapolation of the bias–variance tradeoff), and the empirical observations in the 2010s that some modern machine learning techniques tend to perform better with larger models. == Theoretical models == Double descent occurs in linear regression with isotropic Gaussian covariates and isotropic Gaussian noise. A model of double descent at the thermodynamic limit has been analyzed using the replica trick, and the result has been confirmed numerically. A number of works have suggested that double descent can be explained using the concept of effective dimension: While a network may have a large number of parameters, in practice only a subset of those parameters are relevant for generalization performance, as measured by the local Hessian curvature. This explanation is formalized through PAC-Bayes compression-based generalization bounds, which show that less complex models are expected to generalize better under a Solomonoff prior.

  Read more →
• 

  Gold (linker)

  In software engineering, gold is a linker for ELF files. It became an official GNU package and was added to binutils in March 2008 and first released in binutils version 2.19. gold was developed by Ian Lance Taylor and a small team at Google. The motivation for writing gold was to make a linker that is faster than the GNU linker, especially for large applications coded in C++. Unlike the GNU linker, gold does not use the BFD library to process object files. While this limits the object file formats it can process to ELF only, it is also claimed to result in a cleaner and faster implementation without an additional abstraction layer. The author cited complete removal of BFD as a reason to create a new linker from scratch rather than incrementally improve the GNU linker. This rewrite also fixes some bugs in old ld that break ELF files in various minor ways. To specify gold in a makefile, one sets the LD or LD environment variable to ld.gold. To specify gold through a compiler option, one can use the gcc option -fuse-ld=gold. Fedora has moved gold from binutils into its own package due to concerns it is suffering from bitrot after Google's interest has moved to LLVM. In particular, gold does not read LDFLAGS variable, so cannot see libraries in folders like /usr/local/lib. On 2025-02-02 the 2.44 version of GNU Binutils removed gold from the default source distribution and into a separate package, stating that "the gold linker is now deprecated and will eventually be removed unless volunteers step forward and offer to continue development and maintenance".

  Read more →
• 

  Random feature

  Random features (RF) are a technique used in machine learning to approximate kernel methods, introduced by Ali Rahimi and Ben Recht in their 2007 paper "Random Features for Large-Scale Kernel Machines", and extended by. RF uses a Monte Carlo approximation to kernel functions by randomly sampled feature maps. It is used for datasets that are too large for traditional kernel methods like support vector machine, kernel ridge regression, and gaussian process. == Mathematics == === Kernel method === Given a feature map ϕ : R d → V {\textstyle \phi :\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to V} , where V {\textstyle V} is a Hilbert space (more specifically, a reproducing kernel Hilbert space), the kernel trick replaces inner products in feature space ⟨ ϕ ( x i ) , ϕ ( x j ) ⟩ V {\displaystyle \langle \phi (x_{i}),\phi (x_{j})\rangle _{V}} by a kernel function k ( x i , x j ) : R d × R d → R {\displaystyle k(x_{i},x_{j}):\mathbb {R} ^{d}\times \mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} } Kernel methods replaces linear operations in high-dimensional space by operations on the kernel matrix: K X := [ k ( x i , x j ) ] i , j ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle K_{X}:=[k(x_{i},x_{j})]_{i,j\in 1:N}} where N {\textstyle N} is the number of data points. === Random kernel method === The problem with kernel methods is that the kernel matrix K X {\textstyle K_{X}} has size N × N {\textstyle N\times N} . This becomes computationally infeasible when N {\textstyle N} reaches the order of a million. The random kernel method replaces the kernel function k {\textstyle k} by an inner product in low-dimensional feature space R D {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{D}} : k ( x , y ) ≈ ⟨ z ( x ) , z ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle k(x,y)\approx \langle z(x),z(y)\rangle } where z {\textstyle z} is a randomly sampled feature map z : R d → R D {\textstyle z:\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} ^{D}} . This converts kernel linear regression into linear regression in feature space, kernel SVM into SVM in feature space, etc. Since we have K X ≈ Z X T Z X {\displaystyle K_{X}\approx Z_{X}^{T}Z_{X}} where Z X = [ z ( x 1 ) , … , z ( x N ) ] {\displaystyle Z_{X}=[z(x_{1}),\dots ,z(x_{N})]} , these methods no longer involve matrices of size O ( N 2 ) {\textstyle O(N^{2})} , but only random feature matrices of size O ( D N ) {\textstyle O(DN)} . == Random Fourier feature == === Radial basis function kernel === The radial basis function (RBF) kernel on two samples x i , x j ∈ R d {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} is defined as k ( x i , x j ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x i − x j ‖ 2 2 σ 2 ) {\displaystyle k(x_{i},x_{j})=\exp \left(-{\frac {\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}\right)} where ‖ x i − x j ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|x_{i}-x_{j}\|^{2}} is the squared Euclidean distance and σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a free parameter defining the shape of the kernel. It can be approximated by a random Fourier feature map z : R d → R 2 D {\displaystyle z:\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2D}} : z ( x ) := 1 D [ cos ⁡ ⟨ ω 1 , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ ω 1 , x ⟩ , … , cos ⁡ ⟨ ω D , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ ω D , x ⟩ ] T {\displaystyle z(x):={\frac {1}{\sqrt {D}}}[\cos \langle \omega _{1},x\rangle ,\sin \langle \omega _{1},x\rangle ,\ldots ,\cos \langle \omega _{D},x\rangle ,\sin \langle \omega _{D},x\rangle ]^{T}} where ω 1 , . . . , ω D {\displaystyle \omega _{1},...,\omega _{D}} are IID samples from the multidimensional normal distribution N ( 0 , σ − 2 I ) {\displaystyle N(0,\sigma ^{-2}I)} . Since cos , sin {\displaystyle \cos ,\sin } are bounded, there is a stronger convergence guarantee by Hoeffding's inequality. === Random Fourier features === By Bochner's theorem, the above construction can be generalized to arbitrary positive definite shift-invariant kernel k ( x , y ) = k ( x − y ) {\displaystyle k(x,y)=k(x-y)} . Define its Fourier transform p ( ω ) = 1 2 π ∫ R d e − j ⟨ ω , Δ ⟩ k ( Δ ) d Δ {\displaystyle p(\omega )={\frac {1}{2\pi }}\int _{\mathbb {R} ^{d}}e^{-j\langle \omega ,\Delta \rangle }k(\Delta )d\Delta } then ω 1 , . . . , ω D {\displaystyle \omega _{1},...,\omega _{D}} are sampled IID from the probability distribution with probability density p {\displaystyle p} . This applies for other kernels like the Laplace kernel and the Cauchy kernel. === Neural network interpretation === Given a random Fourier feature map z {\displaystyle z} , training the feature on a dataset by featurized linear regression is equivalent to fitting complex parameters θ 1 , … , θ D ∈ C {\displaystyle \theta _{1},\dots ,\theta _{D}\in \mathbb {C} } such that f θ ( x ) = R e ( ∑ k θ k e i ⟨ ω k , x ⟩ ) {\displaystyle f_{\theta }(x)=\mathrm {Re} \left(\sum _{k}\theta _{k}e^{i\langle \omega _{k},x\rangle }\right)} which is a neural network with a single hidden layer, with activation function t ↦ e i t {\displaystyle t\mapsto e^{it}} , zero bias, and the parameters in the first layer frozen. In the overparameterized case, when 2 D ≥ N {\displaystyle 2D\geq N} , the network linearly interpolates the dataset { ( x i , y i ) } i ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle \{(x_{i},y_{i})\}_{i\in 1:N}} , and the network parameters is the least-norm solution: θ ^ = arg ⁡ min θ ∈ C D , f θ ( x k ) = y k ∀ k ∈ 1 : N ‖ θ ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}=\arg \min _{\theta \in \mathbb {C} ^{D},f_{\theta }(x_{k})=y_{k}\forall k\in 1:N}\|\theta \|} At the limit of D → ∞ {\displaystyle D\to \infty } , the L2 norm ‖ θ ^ ‖ → ‖ f K ‖ H {\displaystyle \|{\hat {\theta }}\|\to \|f_{K}\|_{H}} where f K {\displaystyle f_{K}} is the interpolating function obtained by the kernel regression with the original kernel, and ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{H}} is the norm in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space for the kernel. == Other examples == === Random binning features === A random binning features map partitions the input space using randomly shifted grids at randomly chosen resolutions and assigns to an input point a binary bit string that corresponds to the bins in which it falls. The grids are constructed so that the probability that two points x i , x j ∈ R d {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} are assigned to the same bin is proportional to K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})} . The inner product between a pair of transformed points is proportional to the number of times the two points are binned together, and is therefore an unbiased estimate of K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})} . Since this mapping is not smooth and uses the proximity between input points, Random Binning Features works well for approximating kernels that depend only on the L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} distance between datapoints. === Orthogonal random features === Orthogonal random features uses a random orthogonal matrix instead of a random Fourier matrix. == Historical context == In NIPS 2006, deep learning had just become competitive with linear models like PCA and linear SVMs for large datasets, and people speculated about whether it could compete with kernel SVMs. However, there was no way to train kernel SVM on large datasets. The two authors developed the random feature method to train those. It was then found that the O ( 1 / D ) {\displaystyle O(1/D)} variance bound did not match practice: the variance bound predicts that approximation to within 0.01 {\displaystyle 0.01} requires D ∼ 10 4 {\displaystyle D\sim 10^{4}} , but in practice required only ∼ 10 2 {\displaystyle \sim 10^{2}} . Attempting to discover what caused this led to the subsequent two papers.

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic epistemic logic

  Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov

  Read more →