AI Code Vulnerability Scanner

AI Code Vulnerability Scanner — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Language model benchmark

  A language model benchmark is a standardized test designed to evaluate the performance of language models on various natural language processing tasks. These tests are intended for comparing different models' capabilities in areas such as language understanding, generation, and reasoning. Benchmarks generally consist of a dataset and corresponding evaluation metrics. The dataset provides text samples and annotations, while the metrics measure a model's performance on tasks like answering questions, text classification, and machine translation. These benchmarks are developed and maintained by academic institutions, research organizations, and industry players to track progress in the field. In addition to accuracy, the metrics can include throughput, energy efficiency, bias, trust, and sustainability. == Overview == === Types === Benchmarks may be described by the following adjectives, not mutually exclusive: Classical: These tasks are studied in natural language processing, even before the advent of deep learning. Examples include the Penn Treebank for testing syntactic and semantic parsing, as well as bilingual translation benchmarked by BLEU scores. Question answering: These tasks have a text question and a text answer, often multiple-choice. They can be open-book or closed-book. Open-book QA resembles reading comprehension questions, with relevant passages included as annotation in the question, in which the answer appears. Closed-book QA includes no relevant passages. Closed-book QA is also called open-domain question-answering. Before the era of large language models, open-book QA was more common, and understood as testing information retrieval methods. Closed-book QA became common since GPT-2 as a method to measure knowledge stored within model parameters. Omnibus: An omnibus benchmark combines many benchmarks, often previously published. It is intended as an all-in-one benchmarking solution. Reasoning: These tasks are usually in the question-answering format, but are intended to be more difficult than standard question answering. Multimodal: These tasks require processing not only text, but also other modalities, such as images and sound. Examples include OCR and transcription. Agency: These tasks are for a language-model–based software agent that operates a computer for a user, such as editing images, browsing the web, etc. Adversarial: A benchmark is "adversarial" if the items in the benchmark are picked specifically so that certain models do badly on them. Adversarial benchmarks are often constructed after state of the art (SOTA) models have saturated (achieved 100% performance) a benchmark, to renew the benchmark. A benchmark is "adversarial" only at a certain moment in time, since what is adversarial may cease to be adversarial as newer SOTA models appear. Public/Private: A benchmark might be partly or entirely private, meaning that some or all of the questions are not publicly available. The idea is that if a question is publicly available, then it might be used for training, which would be "training on the test set" and invalidate the result of the benchmark. Usually, only the guardians of the benchmark have access to the private subsets, and to score a model on such a benchmark, one must send the model weights, or provide API access, to the guardians. The boundary between a benchmark and a dataset is not sharp. Generally, a dataset contains three "splits": training, test, and validation. Both the test and validation splits are essentially benchmarks. In general, a benchmark is distinguished from a test/validation dataset in that a benchmark is typically intended to be used to measure the performance of many different models that are not trained specifically for doing well on the benchmark, while a test/validation set is intended to be used to measure the performance of models trained specifically on the corresponding training set. In other words, a benchmark may be thought of as a test/validation set without a corresponding training set. Conversely, certain benchmarks may be used as a training set, such as the English Gigaword or the One Billion Word Benchmark, which in modern language is just the negative log-likelihood loss on a pretraining set with 1 billion words. Indeed, the distinction between benchmark and dataset in language models became sharper after the rise of the pretraining paradigm, whereby a model is first trained on massive, unlabeled datasets to learn general language patterns, syntax, and knowledge (pretraining), and the base model is then adapted to specific, downstream tasks using smaller, labeled datasets (fine-tuning). === Lifecycle === Generally, the life cycle of a benchmark consists of the following steps: Inception: A benchmark is published. It can be simply given as a demonstration of the power of a new model (implicitly) that others then picked up as a benchmark, or as a benchmark that others are encouraged to use (explicitly). Growth: More papers and models use the benchmark, and the performance on the benchmark grows. Maturity, degeneration or deprecation: A benchmark may be saturated, after which researchers move on to other benchmarks. Progress on the benchmark may also be neglected as the field moves to focus on other benchmarks. Renewal: A saturated benchmark can be upgraded to make it no longer saturated, allowing further progress. === Construction === Like datasets, benchmarks are typically constructed by several methods, individually or in combination: Web scraping: Ready-made question-answer pairs may be scraped online, such as from websites that teach mathematics and programming. Conversion: Items may be constructed programmatically from scraped web content, such as by blanking out named entities from sentences, and asking the model to fill in the blank. This was used for making the CNN/Daily Mail Reading Comprehension Task. Crowd sourcing: Items may be constructed by paying people to write them, such as on Amazon Mechanical Turk. This was used for making the MCTest. === Evaluation === Generally, benchmarks are fully automated. This limits the questions that can be asked. For example, with mathematical questions, "proving a claim" would be difficult to automatically check, while "calculate an answer with a unique integer answer" would be automatically checkable. With programming tasks, the answer can generally be checked by running unit tests, with an upper limit on runtime. The benchmark scores are of the following kinds: For multiple choice or cloze questions, common scores are accuracy (frequency of correct answer), precision, recall, F1 score, etc. pass@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If any attempt is correct, the model earns a point. The pass@n score is the model's average score over all problems. k@n: The model makes n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem, but only k {\displaystyle k} attempts out of them are selected for submission. If any submission is correct, the model earns a point. The k@n score is the model's average score over all problems. cons@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If the most common answer is correct, the model earns a point. The cons@n score is the model's average score over all problems. Here "cons" stands for "consensus" or "majority voting". The pass@n score can be estimated more accurately by making N > n {\displaystyle N>n} attempts, and use the unbiased estimator 1 − ( N − c n ) ( N n ) {\displaystyle 1-{\frac {\binom {N-c}{n}}{\binom {N}{n}}}} , where c {\displaystyle c} is the number of correct attempts. For less well-formed tasks, where the output can be any sentence, there are the following commonly used scores including BLEU ROUGE, METEOR, NIST, word error rate, LEPOR, CIDEr, and SPICE. === Issues === error: Some benchmark answers may be wrong. ambiguity: Some benchmark questions may be ambiguously worded. subjective: Some benchmark questions may not have an objective answer at all. This problem generally prevents creative writing benchmarks. Similarly, this prevents benchmarking writing proofs in natural language, though benchmarking proofs in a formal language is possible. open-ended: Some benchmark questions may not have a single answer of a fixed size. This problem generally prevents programming benchmarks from using more natural tasks such as "write a program for X", and instead uses tasks such as "write a function that implements specification X". inter-annotator agreement: Some benchmark questions may be not fully objective, such that even people would not agree with 100% on what the answer should be. This is common in natural language processing tasks, such as syntactic annotation. shortcut: Some benchmark questions may be easily solved by an "unintended" shortcut. For example, in the SNLI benchmark, having a negative word like "not" in the second sentence is a strong signal for the "Contradiction" category, regardless of what the se

  Read more →
• 

  Information gain ratio

  In decision tree learning, information gain ratio is a ratio of information gain to the intrinsic information. It was proposed by Ross Quinlan, to reduce a bias towards multi-valued attributes by taking the number and size of branches into account when choosing an attribute. Information gain is also known as mutual information. == Information gain calculation == Information gain is the reduction in entropy produced from partitioning a set with attributes a {\displaystyle a} and finding the optimal candidate that produces the highest value: IG ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) , {\displaystyle {\text{IG}}(T,a)=\mathrm {H} {(T)}-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)},} where T {\displaystyle T} is a random variable and H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} is the entropy of T {\displaystyle T} given the value of attribute a {\displaystyle a} . The information gain is equal to the total entropy for an attribute if for each of the attribute values a unique classification can be made for the result attribute. In this case the relative entropies subtracted from the total entropy are 0. == Split information calculation == The split information value for a test is defined as follows: SplitInformation ( X ) = − ∑ i = 1 n N ( x i ) N ( x ) ∗ log ⁡ 2 N ( x i ) N ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{SplitInformation}}(X)=-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}}} where X {\displaystyle X} is a discrete random variable with possible values x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x i {\displaystyle {x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{i}}} and N ( x i ) {\displaystyle N(x_{i})} being the number of times that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} occurs divided by the total count of events N ( x ) {\displaystyle N(x)} where x {\displaystyle x} is the set of events. The split information value is a positive number that describes the potential worth of splitting a branch from a node. This in turn is the intrinsic value that the random variable possesses and will be used to remove the bias in the information gain ratio calculation. == Information gain ratio calculation == The information gain ratio is the ratio between the information gain and the split information value: IGR ( T , a ) = IG ( T , a ) / SplitInformation ( T ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\text{IG}}(T,a)/{\text{SplitInformation}}(T)} IGR ( T , a ) = − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T ) log ⁡ P ( T ) − ( − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T | a ) log ⁡ P ( T | a ) ) − ∑ i = 1 n N ( t i ) N ( t ) ∗ log ⁡ 2 N ( t i ) N ( t ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\frac {-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T)\log \mathrm {P} (T)}-(-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T|a)\log \mathrm {P} (T|a)})}{-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}}}}} == Example == Using weather data published by Fordham University, the table was created below: Using the table above, one can find the entropy, information gain, split information, and information gain ratio for each variable (outlook, temperature, humidity, and wind). These calculations are shown in the tables below: Using the above tables, one can deduce that Outlook has the highest information gain ratio. Next, one must find the statistics for the sub-groups of the Outlook variable (sunny, overcast, and rainy), for this example one will only build the sunny branch (as shown in the table below): One can find the following statistics for the other variables (temperature, humidity, and wind) to see which have the greatest effect on the sunny element of the outlook variable: Humidity was found to have the highest information gain ratio. One will repeat the same steps as before and find the statistics for the events of the Humidity variable (high and normal): Since the play values are either all "No" or "Yes", the information gain ratio value will be equal to 1. Also, now that one has reached the end of the variable chain with Wind being the last variable left, they can build an entire root to leaf node branch line of a decision tree. Once finished with reaching this leaf node, one would follow the same procedure for the rest of the elements that have yet to be split in the decision tree. This set of data was relatively small, however, if a larger set was used, the advantages of using the information gain ratio as the splitting factor of a decision tree can be seen more. == Advantages == Information gain ratio biases the decision tree against considering attributes with a large number of distinct values. For example, suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain ratio is used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant. These will be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's telephone number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer. Due to its high amount of distinct values, this will not be chosen to be tested near the root. == Disadvantages == Although information gain ratio solves the key problem of information gain, it creates another problem. If one is considering an amount of attributes that have a high number of distinct values, these will never be above one that has a lower number of distinct values. == Difference from information gain == Information gain's shortcoming is created by not providing a numerical difference between attributes with high distinct values from those that have less. Example: Suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain is often used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant, so they can be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's credit card number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer, but we do not want to include it in the decision tree: deciding how to treat a customer based on their credit card number is unlikely to generalize to customers we haven't seen before. Information gain ratio's strength is that it has a bias towards the attributes with the lower number of distinct values. Below is a table describing the differences of information gain and information gain ratio when put in certain scenarios.

  Read more →
• 

  Silhouette (clustering)

  Silhouette is a method of interpretation and validation of consistency within clusters of data. The technique provides a succinct graphical representation of how well each object has been classified. It was proposed by Belgian statistician Peter Rousseeuw in 1987. The silhouette value is a measure of how similar an object is to its own cluster (cohesion) compared to other clusters (separation). The silhouette value ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the object is well matched to its own cluster and poorly matched to neighboring clusters. If most objects have a high value, then the clustering configuration is appropriate. If many points have a low or negative value, then the clustering configuration may have too many or too few clusters. A clustering with an average silhouette width of over 0.7 is considered to be "strong", a value over 0.5 "reasonable", and over 0.25 "weak". However, with an increasing dimensionality of the data, it becomes difficult to achieve such high values because of the curse of dimensionality, as the distances become more similar. The silhouette score is specialized for measuring cluster quality when the clusters are convex-shaped, and may not perform well if the data clusters have irregular shapes or are of varying sizes. The silhouette value can be calculated with any distance metric, such as Euclidean distance or Manhattan distance. == Definition == Assume the data have been clustered via any technique, such as k-medoids or k-means, into k {\displaystyle k} clusters. For data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} (data point i {\displaystyle i} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} ), calculate a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} , the average distance that i {\displaystyle i} is from all other points in that cluster: a ( i ) = 1 | C i | − 1 ∑ j ∈ C i , i ≠ j d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle a(i)={\frac {1}{|C_{i}|-1}}\sum _{j\in C_{i},i\neq j}d(i,j)} where | C i | {\displaystyle |C_{i}|} is the number of points belonging to cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} , and d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle d(i,j)} is the distance between data points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} (we divide by | C i | − 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|-1} because the distance d ( i , i ) {\displaystyle d(i,i)} is not included in the sum). a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} can be interpreted as a measure of how well i {\displaystyle i} is assigned to its cluster (the smaller the value, the better the assignment). We then define the mean dissimilarity of point i {\displaystyle i} to some cluster C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} as the mean of the distance from i {\displaystyle i} to all points in C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} (where C j ≠ C i {\displaystyle C_{j}\neq C_{i}} ). For each data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} , we now define b ( i ) {\displaystyle b(i)} as the average distance between i {\displaystyle i} and the points in the closest cluster (hence: "min") that i {\displaystyle i} does not belong to: b ( i ) = min j ≠ i 1 | C j | ∑ l ∈ C j d ( i , l ) {\displaystyle b(i)=\min _{j\neq i}{\frac {1}{|C_{j}|}}\sum _{l\in C_{j}}d(i,l)} The cluster with the smallest mean dissimilarity is said to be the "neighboring cluster" of i {\displaystyle i} because it is the next best fit cluster for point i {\displaystyle i} . We now define a silhouette (value) of one data point i {\displaystyle i} s ( i ) = b ( i ) − a ( i ) max { a ( i ) , b ( i ) } {\displaystyle s(i)={\frac {b(i)-a(i)}{\max\{a(i),b(i)\}}}} , if | C i | > 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|>1} and s ( i ) = 0 {\displaystyle s(i)=0} , if | C i | = 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|=1} , which can also be written as s ( i ) = { 1 − a ( i ) b ( i ) , if a ( i ) < b ( i ) 0 , if a ( i ) = b ( i ) b ( i ) a ( i ) − 1 , if a ( i ) > b ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)={\begin{cases}1-{\frac {a(i)}{b(i)}},&{\mbox{ if }}a(i)b(i)\\\end{cases}}} From the above definition, s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} is bounded to the interval [ − 1 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-1,1]} , i.e. − 1 ≤ s ( i ) ≤ 1. {\displaystyle -1\leq s(i)\leq 1.} Note that a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} is not clearly defined for clusters with size = 1, in which case we set s ( i ) = 0 {\displaystyle s(i)=0} . This choice is arbitrary, but neutral in the sense that it is at the midpoint of the bounds, -1 and 1. For s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} to be close to 1 we require a ( i ) ≪ b ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)\ll b(i)} . As a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} is a measure of how dissimilar i {\displaystyle i} is to its own cluster, a small value means it is well matched. Furthermore, a large b ( i ) {\displaystyle b(i)} implies that i {\displaystyle i} is badly matched to its neighbouring cluster. Thus an s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} close to 1 means that the data is appropriately clustered. If s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} is close to -1, then by the same logic we see that i {\displaystyle i} would be more appropriate if it was clustered in its neighbouring cluster. An s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} near zero means that the datum is on the border of two natural clusters. The mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all points of a cluster is a measure of how tightly grouped all the points in the cluster are. Thus the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset is a measure of how appropriately the data have been clustered. If there are too many or too few clusters, as may occur when a poor choice of k {\displaystyle k} is used in the clustering algorithm (e.g., k-means), some of the clusters will typically display much narrower silhouettes than the rest. Thus silhouette plots and means may be used to determine the natural number of clusters within a dataset. One can also increase the likelihood of the silhouette being maximized at the correct number of clusters by re-scaling the data using feature weights that are cluster specific. Kaufman et al. introduced the term silhouette coefficient for the maximum value of the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset, i.e., S C = max k s ~ ( k ) , {\displaystyle SC=\max _{k}{\tilde {s}}\left(k\right),} where s ~ ( k ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {s}}\left(k\right)} represents the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset for a specific number of clusters k {\displaystyle k} . The silhouette coefficient describes the best possible clustering possible for a given number of clusters, as measured by the highest average silhouette score for all points in the dataset. == Simplified and medoid silhouette == Computing the silhouette coefficient needs all O ( N 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(N^{2})} pairwise distances, making this evaluation much more costly than clustering with k-means. For a clustering with centers μ C I {\displaystyle \mu _{C_{I}}} for each cluster C I {\displaystyle C_{I}} , we can use the following simplified Silhouette for each point i ∈ C I {\displaystyle i\in C_{I}} instead, which can be computed using only O ( N k ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(Nk)} distances: a ′ ( i ) = d ( i , μ C I ) {\displaystyle a'(i)=d(i,\mu _{C_{I}})} and b ′ ( i ) = min C J ≠ C I d ( i , μ C J ) {\displaystyle b'(i)=\min _{C_{J}\neq C_{I}}d(i,\mu _{C_{J}})} , which has the additional benefit that a ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle a'(i)} is always defined, then define accordingly the simplified silhouette and simplified silhouette coefficient s ′ ( i ) = b ′ ( i ) − a ′ ( i ) max { a ′ ( i ) , b ′ ( i ) } {\displaystyle s'(i)={\frac {b'(i)-a'(i)}{\max\{a'(i),b'(i)\}}}} S C ′ = max k 1 N ∑ i s ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle SC'=\max _{k}{\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i}s'\left(i\right)} . If the cluster centers are medoids (as in k-medoids clustering) instead of arithmetic means (as in k-means clustering), this is also called the medoid-based silhouette or medoid silhouette. If every object is assigned to the nearest medoid (as in k-medoids clustering), we know that a ′ ( i ) ≤ b ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle a'(i)\leq b'(i)} , and hence s ′ ( i ) = b ′ ( i ) − a ′ ( i ) b ′ ( i ) = 1 − a ′ ( i ) b ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle s'(i)={\frac {b'(i)-a'(i)}{b'(i)}}=1-{\frac {a'(i)}{b'(i)}}} . == Silhouette clustering == Instead of using the average silhouette to evaluate a clustering obtained from, e.g., k-medoids or k-means, we can try to directly find a solution that maximizes the Silhouette. We do not have a closed form solution to maximize this, but it will usually be best to assign points to the nearest cluster as done by these methods. Van der Laan et al. proposed to adapt the standard algorithm for k-medoids, PAM, for this purpose and call this algorithm PAMSIL: Choose initial medoids by using PAM Compute the average silhouette of this initial solution For each pair of a medoid m and a non-medoid x swap m and x compute the average silhouette of the resulting solution remember the best swap un-swap m and x for the next iteration Perform the best swap and return to

  Read more →
• 

  Multiclass classification

  In machine learning and statistical classification, multiclass classification or multinomial classification is the problem of classifying instances into one of three or more classes (classifying instances into one of two classes is called binary classification). For example, deciding on whether an image is showing a banana, peach, orange, or an apple is a multiclass classification problem, with four possible classes (banana, peach, orange, apple), while deciding on whether an image contains an apple or not is a binary classification problem (with the two possible classes being: apple, no apple). While many classification algorithms (e.g., decision trees, k-NN, neural networks and multinomial logistic regression) naturally permit the use of more than two classes, some are by nature binary algorithms (e.g., classical binary support vector machine) and require decomposition strategies such as one-vs-all, one-vs-one, or ECOC to solve multiclass problems. Multiclass classification should not be confused with multi-label classification, where multiple labels are to be predicted for each instance (e.g., predicting that an image contains both an apple and an orange, in the previous example). == Better-than-random multiclass models == From the confusion matrix of a multiclass model, we can determine whether a model does better than chance. Let K ≥ 3 {\displaystyle K\geq 3} be the number of classes, O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}} a set of observations, y ^ : O → { 1 , . . . , K } {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}:{\mathcal {O}}\to \{1,...,K\}} a model of the target variable y : O → { 1 , . . . , K } {\displaystyle y:{\mathcal {O}}\to \{1,...,K\}} and n i , j {\displaystyle n_{i,j}} be the number of observations in the set { y = i } ∩ { y ^ = j } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}\cap \{{\hat {y}}=j\}} . We note n i . = ∑ j n i , j {\displaystyle n_{i.}=\sum _{j}n_{i,j}} , n . j = ∑ i n i , j {\displaystyle n_{.j}=\sum _{i}n_{i,j}} , n = ∑ j n . j = ∑ i n i . {\displaystyle n=\sum _{j}n_{.j}=\sum _{i}n_{i.}} , λ i = n i . n {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}={\frac {n_{i.}}{n}}} and μ j = n . j n {\displaystyle \mu _{j}={\frac {n_{.j}}{n}}} . It is assumed that the confusion matrix ( n i , j ) i , j {\displaystyle (n_{i,j})_{i,j}} contains at least one non-zero entry in each row, that is λ i > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}>0} for any i {\displaystyle i} . Finally we call "normalized confusion matrix" the matrix of conditional probabilities ( P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) ) i , j = ( n i , j n i . ) i , j {\displaystyle (\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i))_{i,j}=\left({\frac {n_{i,j}}{n_{i.}}}\right)_{i,j}} . === Intuitive explanation === The lift is a way of measuring the deviation from independence of two events A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} : L i f t ( A , B ) = P ( A ∩ B ) P ( A ) P ( B ) = P ( A ∣ B ) P ( A ) = P ( B ∣ A ) P ( B ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (A,B)={\frac {\mathbb {P} (A\cap B)}{\mathbb {P} (A)\mathbb {P} (B)}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} (A\mid B)}{\mathbb {P} (A)}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} (B\mid A)}{\mathbb {P} (B)}}} We have L i f t ( A , B ) > 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (A,B)>1} if and only if events A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} occur simultaneously with a greater probability than if they were independent. In other words, if one of the two events occurs, the probability of observing the other event increases. A first condition to satisfy is to have L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)\geq 1} for any i {\displaystyle i} . And the quality of a model (better or worse than chance) does not change if we over- or undersample the dataset, that is if we multiply each row R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} of the confusion matrix by a constant c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} . Thus the second condition is that the necessary and sufficient conditions for doing better than chance need only depend on the normalized confusion matrix. The condition on lifts can be reformulated with One versus Rest binary models : for any i {\displaystyle i} , we define the binary target variable y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} which is the indicator of event { y = i } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}} , and the binary model y ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}_{i}} of y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} which is the indicator of event { y ^ = i } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {y}}=i\}} . Each of the y ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}_{i}} models is a "One versus Rest" model. L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)} only depends on the events { y = i } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}} and { y ^ = i } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {y}}=i\}} , so merging or not merging the other classes doesn't change its value. We therefore have L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) = L i f t ( y i = 1 , y ^ i = 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)=\mathrm {Lift} (y_{i}=1,{\hat {y}}_{i}=1)} and the first condition is that all binary One versus Rest models are better than chance. ==== Example ==== If K = 2 {\displaystyle K=2} and 2 is the class of interest , the normalized confusion matrix is ( s p e c i f i c i t y 1 − s p e c i f i c i t y 1 − s e n s i t i v i t y s e n s i t i v i t y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm {specificity} &1-\mathrm {specificity} \\1-\mathrm {sensitivity} &\mathrm {sensitivity} \end{pmatrix}}} and we have L i f t ( y = 1 , y ^ = 1 ) − 1 = P ( y = y ^ = 1 ) λ 1 μ 1 − 1 = n 1 , 1 n n 1. n .1 − 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=1,{\hat {y}}=1)-1={\frac {\mathbb {P} (y={\hat {y}}=1)}{\lambda _{1}\mu _{1}}}-1={\frac {n_{1,1}n}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}-1} = n 1 , 1 ( n 1 , 1 + n 1 , 2 + n 2 , 1 + n 2 , 2 ) − ( n 1 , 1 + n 1 , 2 ) ( n 1 , 1 + n 2 , 1 ) n 1. n .1 = n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 n 1. n .1 {\displaystyle ={\frac {n_{1,1}(n_{1,1}+n_{1,2}+n_{2,1}+n_{2,2})-(n_{1,1}+n_{1,2})(n_{1,1}+n_{2,1})}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}={\frac {n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}} . Thus L i f t ( y = 1 , y ^ = 1 ) ≥ 1 ⟺ n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=1,{\hat {y}}=1)\geq 1\iff n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}\geq 0} . Similarly, by swapping the roles of 1 and 2, we find that L i f t ( y = 2 , y ^ = 2 ) ≥ 1 ⟺ n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=2,{\hat {y}}=2)\geq 1\iff n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}\geq 0} . Dividing by n 1. n 2. {\displaystyle n_{1.}n_{2.}} we find that the necessary and sufficient condition on the normalized confusion matrix is s e n s i t i v i t y s p e c i f i c i t y − ( 1 − s e n s i t i v i t y ) ( 1 − s p e c i f i c i t y ) ≥ 0 ⟺ s e n s i t i v i t y + s p e c i f i c i t y − 1 ≥ 0 ⟺ J ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {sensitivity} \ \mathrm {specificity} -(1-\mathrm {sensitivity} )(1-\mathrm {specificity} )\geq 0\iff \mathrm {sensitivity} +\mathrm {specificity} -1\geq 0\iff J\geq 0} . This brings us back to the classical binary condition: Youden's J must be positive (or zero for random models). === Random models === A random model is a model that is independent of the target variable. This property is easily reformulated with the confusion matrix. This proposition shows that the model y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} of y {\displaystyle y} is uninformative if and only if there are two families of numbers ( α i ) i {\displaystyle (\alpha _{i})_{i}} and ( β j ) j {\displaystyle (\beta _{j})_{j}} such that P ( { y = i } ∩ { y ^ = j } ) = α i β j {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} (\{y=i\}\cap \{{\hat {y}}=j\})=\alpha _{i}\beta _{j}} for any i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . === Multiclass likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios === We define generalized likelihood ratios calculated from the normalized confusion matrix: for any i {\displaystyle i} and j ≠ i {\displaystyle j\not =i} , let L R i , j = P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = j ) P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{i,j}={\frac {\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=j)}{\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i)}}} . When K = 2 {\displaystyle K=2} , if 2 is the class of interest,, we find the classical likelihood ratios L R 1 , 2 = L R + {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{1,2}=\mathrm {LR} _{+}} and L R 2 , 1 = 1 L R − {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{2,1}={\frac {1}{\mathrm {LR} _{-}}}} . Multiclass diagnostic odds ratios can also be defined using the formula D O R i , j = D O R j , i = L R i , j L R j , i = n i , i n j , j n i , j n j , i = P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = j ) / P ( y ^ = i ∣ y = j ) P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) / P ( y ^ = i ∣ y = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {DOR} _{i,j}=\mathrm {DOR} _{j,i}=\mathrm {LR} _{i,j}\mathrm {LR} _{j,i}={\frac {n_{i,i}n_{j,j}}{n_{i,j}n_{j,i}}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=j)/\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=i\mid y=j)}{\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i)/\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=i\mid y=i)}}} We saw above that a better-than-chance model (or a random model) must verify L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)\geq 1} for any i {\displaystyle i} and λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}} . According to the previous corollary, likelihood ratios are thus greater

  Read more →
• 

  Perplexity AI

  Perplexity AI, Inc., or simply Perplexity, is an American privately held software company offering a web search engine that processes user queries and synthesizes responses. Perplexity products use large language models and incorporate real-time web search capabilities, providing responses based on current Internet content, citing sources used. Its real-time search engine is called Sonar and is based on Meta's Llama model. A free public version is available, while a paid Pro subscription offers access to more advanced language models and additional features. Perplexity AI, Inc., was founded in August 2022 by Aravind Srinivas, Denis Yarats, Johnny Ho, and Andy Konwinski. As of September 2025, the company was valued at US$20 billion. Perplexity AI has attracted legal scrutiny over allegations of copyright infringement, unauthorized content use, and trademark issues from several major media organizations, including the BBC, Dow Jones, and The New York Times. According to separate analyses by Wired and later Cloudflare, Perplexity uses undisclosed web crawlers with spoofed user-agent strings to scrape the content of websites which prohibit, or explicitly block, web scraping. == History == In August 2022, Perplexity AI, Inc., was founded by Aravind Srinivas, Denis Yarats, Johnny Ho, and Andy Konwinski, engineers with backgrounds in back-end systems, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. It launched its main search engine on December 7, 2022, and has since released a Google Chrome extension and apps for iOS and Android. In February 2023, Perplexity reported two million unique visitors. By April 2024, Perplexity had raised $165 million in funding, valuing the company at over $1 billion. As of June 2025, Perplexity closed a $500 million round of funding that elevated its valuation to $14 billion. Investors in Perplexity AI have included Jeff Bezos, Tobias Lütke, Nat Friedman, Nvidia, and Databricks. Perplexity has also received funding from 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm notable for its association with Donald Trump Jr. During Bloomberg’s Tech Summit 2025, Srinivas shared that the company processed 780 million queries in May 2025, experiencing more than 20% month-over-month growth, processing around 30 million queries daily. In July 2024, Perplexity announced the launch of a new publishers' program to share advertising revenue with partners. On January 18, 2025, the day before the impending U.S. ban on the social media app TikTok, Perplexity submitted a proposal for a merger with TikTok US. On August 12, 2025, Perplexity made a bid to buy Chrome from Google for $34.5 billion. Perplexity stated that the sale could remedy anti-trust litigation against Google, in which a judge was considering compelling the sale of Chrome. In December 2025, Cristiano Ronaldo took an undisclosed stake in Perplexity AI and entered a global brand partnership with the company. === Business Strategy and Finance (2026) === As of early 2026, Perplexity AI reached a valuation of $21.21 billion following its Series E-6 funding round. The company's Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) grew from $80 million in late 2024 to an estimated $200 million by February 2026. In January 2026, the company entered into a three-year, $750 million commitment with Microsoft Azure to secure the GPU capacity required for its advanced "Deep Research" and "Model Council" features. In February 2026, Perplexity transitioned to a subscription-first model by discontinuing its AI-integrated advertising strategy. Leadership stated the move was intended to preserve user trust in the "answer engine," prioritizing objective results over ad revenue. The company also introduced the "Model Council" feature on February 5, 2026, which allows users to compare outputs from multiple large language models, such as GPT-5.2 and Claude 4.6, simultaneously. To expand its user base, Perplexity began offering a free year of Pro access to students, U.S. Military Veterans, and government employees. == Products and services == === Search engine web portal === Perplexity’s primary offering is an online information retrieval system (search engine) that uses large language models to generate responses to user queries by searching and summarizing web-based content. Perplexity offers a feature known as Perplexity Pages that generates structured summaries and report-like content from user queries by aggregating cited sources. Perplexity is available without charge or registration to Web users, a freemium model. === Perplexity Pro === Perplexity Pro is a subscription tier, a more capable paid "enterprise" service, including stronger security and data protection and additional tools, including the ability to search uploaded documents alongside web content and access to a programmatic application programming interface (API). It allows the user to select between backend models such as GPT-5.4, Claude 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro. The company has also developed its own models, Sonar (based on Llama 3.3) and R1 1776 (based on DeepSeek R1). === Internal Knowledge Search === Internal Knowledge Search enables Pro and Enterprise Pro users to simultaneously search across web content and internal documents. Users can upload and search through Excel, Word, PDF, and other common file formats. Enterprise Pro users can upload and index up to 500 files. === Search API === Perplexity's Search API provides AI developers with programmatic access to the company's search infrastructure. The September 2025 release includes a software development kit, an open-source evaluation framework called search_evals, and documentation detailing the API's design and optimization. === Shopping hub === Perplexity's Shopping Hub is an online shopping platform that provides AI-generated product recommendations, and enables users to purchase products directly through Perplexity's interface. It was launched in November 2024 with backing by Amazon and Nvidia. === Finance === In October 2024, Perplexity AI introduced new finance-related features, including looking up stock prices and company earnings data. The tool provides real-time stock quotes and price tracking, industry peer comparisons and basic financial analysis tools. The platform sources its financial data from Financial Modeling Prep. === Assistant === In January 2025, Perplexity launched the Perplexity Assistant, an AI-powered tool designed to enhance the functionality of its search engine. It can perform tasks across multiple apps, such as hailing a ride or searching for a song, and can maintain context across actions. The assistant is also multi-modal, meaning it can use a phone's camera to provide answers about the user's surroundings or on-screen content. Perplexity has acknowledged that the assistant is still in development and may not always function as expected. For instance, certain features, such as summarizing unread emails or upcoming calendar events, require users to enable a workaround based on notifications. === Comet === In July 2025, Perplexity launched Comet, an AI browser based on Chromium. Initially, access to the browser was limited to users subscribed to the most expensive subscription tier. The browser was later released for free download in October 2025. A key feature is integration of the Perplexity search engine, which can perform a variety of tasks such as generating article summaries, describing an image, conducting research about a topic and composing emails. === Truth Social chatbot === Perplexity has been contracted to produce a chatbot for Donald Trump's social media platform Truth Social. == Leadership == Aravind Srinivas is the CEO and co-founder of Perplexity AI. He previously held research positions at OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and other AI research institutions focusing on machine learning and artificial intelligence. In a March 2026 All-In episode, Srinivas said the incoming AI-related layoffs were "glorious future" to "look forward", as it freed people from jobs they didn't like and gave them opportunities to pursue entrepreneurship. == Controversies == === Copyright and trademark infringement allegations === In June 2024, Forbes publicly criticized Perplexity for using their content. According to Forbes, Perplexity published a story largely copied from a proprietary Forbes article without mentioning or prominently citing Forbes. In response, Srinivas said that the feature had some "rough edges" and accepted feedback but maintained that Perplexity only "aggregates" rather than plagiarizes information. In October 2024, The New York Times sent a cease-and-desist notice to Perplexity to stop accessing and using NYT content, claiming that Perplexity is violating its copyright by scraping data from its website. In June 2024, Dow Jones and New York Post filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, alleging copyright infringement. The lawsuit also alleged that Perplexity harmed their brand by attributing hallucinated quotes, for example on F-16 jets for Ukraine, to artic

  Read more →
• 

  GraphLab

  Turi is a graph-based, high performance, distributed computation framework written in C++. The GraphLab project was started by Prof. Carlos Guestrin of Carnegie Mellon University in 2009. It is an open source project that uses the Apache License. While GraphLab was originally developed for machine learning tasks, it has also been developed for other data-mining tasks. == Motivation == As the amounts of collected data and computing power grow (multicore, GPUs, clusters, clouds), modern datasets no longer fit into one computing node. Efficient distributed parallel algorithms for handling large-scale data are required. The GraphLab framework is a parallel programming abstraction targeted for sparse iterative graph algorithms. GraphLab provides a programming interface, allowing deployment of distributed machine learning algorithms. The main design considerations behind the design of GraphLab are: Sparse data with local dependencies Iterative algorithms Potentially asynchronous execution == GraphLab toolkits == On top of GraphLab, several implemented libraries of algorithms: Topic modeling - contains applications like LDA, which can be used to cluster documents and extract topical representations. Graph analytics - contains applications like pagerank and triangle counting, which can be applied to general graphs to estimate community structure. Clustering - contains standard data clustering tools such as Kmeans Collaborative filtering - contains a collection of applications used to make predictions about users interests and factorize large matrices. Graphical models - contains tools for making joint predictions about collections of related random variables. Computer vision - contains a collection of tools for reasoning about images. == Turi == Turi (formerly called Dato and before that GraphLab Inc.) is a company that was founded by Prof. Carlos Guestrin from University of Washington in May 2013 to continue development support of the GraphLab open source project. Dato Inc. raised a $6.75M Series A from Madrona Venture Group and New Enterprise Associates (NEA). They raised a $18.5M Series B from Vulcan Capital and Opus Capital, with participation from Madrona and NEA. On August 5, 2016, Turi was acquired by Apple Inc. for $200,000,000.

  Read more →
• 

  List of text mining software

  Text mining computer programs are available from many commercial and open source companies and sources. == Commercial == Angoss – Angoss Text Analytics provides entity and theme extraction, topic categorization, sentiment analysis and document summarization capabilities via the embedded AUTINDEX – is a commercial text mining software package based on sophisticated linguistics by IAI (Institute for Applied Information Sciences), Saarbrücken. DigitalMR – social media listening & text+image analytics tool for market research. FICO Score – leading provider of analytics. General Sentiment – Social Intelligence platform that uses natural language processing to discover affinities between the fans of brands with the fans of traditional television shows in social media. Stand alone text analytics to capture social knowledge base on billions of topics stored to 2004. IBM LanguageWare – the IBM suite for text analytics (tools and Runtime). IBM SPSS – provider of Modeler Premium (previously called IBM SPSS Modeler and IBM SPSS Text Analytics), which contains advanced NLP-based text analysis capabilities (multi-lingual sentiment, event and fact extraction), that can be used in conjunction with Predictive Modeling. Text Analytics for Surveys provides the ability to categorize survey responses using NLP-based capabilities for further analysis or reporting. Inxight – provider of text analytics, search, and unstructured visualization technologies. (Inxight was bought by Business Objects that was bought by SAP AG in 2008). Language Computer Corporation – text extraction and analysis tools, available in multiple languages. Lexalytics – provider of a text analytics engine used in Social Media Monitoring, Voice of Customer, Survey Analysis, and other applications. Salience Engine. The software provides the unique capability of merging the output of unstructured, text-based analysis with structured data to provide additional predictive variables for improved predictive models and association analysis. Linguamatics – provider of natural language processing (NLP) based enterprise text mining and text analytics software, I2E, for high-value knowledge discovery and decision support. Mathematica – provides built in tools for text alignment, pattern matching, clustering and semantic analysis. See Wolfram Language, the programming language of Mathematica. MATLAB offers Text Analytics Toolbox for importing text data, converting it to numeric form for use in machine and deep learning, sentiment analysis and classification tasks. Medallia – offers one system of record for survey, social, text, written and online feedback. NetMiner – software for network analysis and text mining. Supports social media and bibliographic data collection, NLP for english and chinese, sentiment analysis, work co-occurrence network(text network analysis) and visualization. NetOwl – suite of multilingual text and entity analytics products, including entity extraction, link and event extraction, sentiment analysis, geotagging, name translation, name matching, and identity resolution, among others. PolyAnalyst - text analytics environment. PoolParty Semantic Suite - graph-based text mining platform. RapidMiner with its Text Processing Extension – data and text mining software. SAS – SAS Text Miner and Teragram; commercial text analytics, natural language processing, and taxonomy software used for Information Management. Sketch Engine – a corpus manager and analysis software which providing creating text corpora from uploaded texts or the Web including part-of-speech tagging and lemmatization or detecting a particular website. Sysomos – provider social media analytics software platform, including text analytics and sentiment analysis on online consumer conversations. WordStat – Content analysis and text mining add-on module of QDA Miner for analyzing large amounts of text data. == Open source == Carrot2 – text and search results clustering framework. GATE – general Architecture for Text Engineering, an open-source toolbox for natural language processing and language engineering. Gensim – large-scale topic modelling and extraction of semantic information from unstructured text (Python). KH Coder – for Quantitative Content Analysis or Text Mining The KNIME Text Processing extension. Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK) – a suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for the Python programming language. OpenNLP – natural language processing. Orange with its text mining add-on. The PLOS Text Mining Collection. The programming language R provides a framework for text mining applications in the package tm. The Natural Language Processing task view contains tm and other text mining library packages. spaCy – open-source Natural Language Processing library for Python Stanbol – an open source text mining engine targeted at semantic content management. Voyant Tools – a web-based text analysis environment, created as a scholarly project.

  Read more →
• 

  Jubatus

  Jubatus is an open-source online machine learning and distributed computing framework developed at Nippon Telegraph and Telephone and Preferred Infrastructure. Its features include classification, recommendation, regression, anomaly detection and graph mining. It supports many client languages, including C++, Java, Ruby and Python. It uses Iterative Parameter Mixture for distributed machine learning. == Notable Features == Jubatus supports: Multi-classification algorithms: Perceptron Passive Aggressive Confidence Weighted Adaptive Regularization of Weight Vectors Normal Herd Recommendation algorithms using: Inverted index Minhash Locality-sensitive hashing Regression algorithms: Passive Aggressive feature extraction method for natural language: n-gram Text segmentation

  Read more →
• 

  Unspent transaction output

  In cryptocurrencies, an unspent transaction output (UTXO, often capitalized as UTxO) is a distinctive element in a subset of digital currency models. A UTXO represents a certain amount of cryptocurrency that has been authorized by a sender and is available to be spent by a recipient. The utilization of UTXOs in transaction processes is a key feature of many cryptocurrencies, but it primarily characterizes those implementing the UTXO model. UTXOs employ public key cryptography to ascertain and transfer ownership. More specifically, the recipient's public key is formatted into the UTXO, thereby limiting the capability to spend the UTXO to the account that can demonstrate ownership of the corresponding private key. A valid digital signature associated with the public key must be included for the UTXO to be spent. In the UTXO model, each unit of currency is treated as a discrete object. The history of a UTXO is documented only within the blocks where it is transferred. To ascertain the total balance of an account, one must scan each block to find the latest UTXOs linked to that account. While all nodes within a blockchain network must consent to the block history, the blocks relevant to an account's balance are unique to that account. UTXOs constitute a chain of ownership depicted as a series of digital signatures dating back to the coin's inception, regardless of whether the coin was minted via mining, staking, or another procedure determined by the cryptocurrency protocol. The UTXO model was invented for Bitcoin. Cardano uses an extended version of the UTXO model known as EUTXO. == Origins == The conceptual framework of the UTXO model can be traced back to Hal Finney's Reusable Proofs of Work proposal, which itself was based on Adam Back's 1997 Hashcash proposal. Bitcoin, released in 2009, was the first widespread implementation of the UTXO model in practice. == UTXO model vs. account Model == Cryptocurrencies that utilize the UTXO model function differently compared to those using the account model. In the UTXO model, individual units of cryptocurrency, termed as unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), are transferred between users, analogous to the exchange of physical cash. This model impacts how transactions and ownership are recorded and verified within the blockchain network. The account model preserves a record of each account and its corresponding balance for every block added to the network. This setup enables quicker balance verification without the need to scan historical blocks, but it increases the raw size of each block (though data compression techniques can be utilized to alleviate this). However, both models necessitate the inspection of past blocks to fully authenticate the origin of coins. In the UTXO model, each object is immutable - units of coins cannot be 'edited' in the same way an account balance is modified when a transaction occurs. Rather, the balance is computed from the transaction history dating back to when the coins were first minted. This simplicity enhances security, as a UTXO either exists in its anticipated form or it does not. In contrast, the account model requires meticulous verification of the account's status during transactions, which can lead to oversights if not conducted correctly. In valid blockchain transactions, only unspent outputs (UTXOs) are permissible for funding subsequent transactions. This requirement is critical to prevent double-spending and fraud. Accordingly, inputs in a transaction are removed from the UTXO set, while outputs create new UTXOs that are added to the set. The holders of private keys, such as those with cryptocurrency wallets, can utilize these UTXOs for future transactions.

  Read more →
• 

  Tensor product network

  A tensor product network, in artificial neural networks, is a network that exploits the properties of tensors to model associative concepts such as variable assignment. Orthonormal vectors are chosen to model the ideas (such as variable names and target assignments), and the tensor product of these vectors construct a network whose mathematical properties allow the user to easily extract the association from it.

  Read more →
• 

  Nearest centroid classifier

  In machine learning, a nearest centroid classifier or nearest prototype classifier is a classification model that assigns to observations the label of the class of training samples whose mean (centroid) is closest to the observation. When applied to text classification using word vectors containing tfidf weights to represent documents, the nearest centroid classifier is known as the Rocchio classifier because of its similarity to the Rocchio algorithm for relevance feedback. An extended version of the nearest centroid classifier has found applications in the medical domain, specifically classification of tumors. == Algorithm == === Training === Given labeled training samples { ( x → 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x → n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \textstyle \{({\vec {x}}_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,({\vec {x}}_{n},y_{n})\}} with class labels y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \mathbf {Y} } , compute the per-class centroids μ → ℓ = 1 | C ℓ | ∑ i ∈ C ℓ x → i {\displaystyle \textstyle {\vec {\mu }}_{\ell }={\frac {1}{|C_{\ell }|}}{\underset {i\in C_{\ell }}{\sum }}{\vec {x}}_{i}} where C ℓ {\displaystyle C_{\ell }} is the set of indices of samples belonging to class ℓ ∈ Y {\displaystyle \ell \in \mathbf {Y} } . === Prediction === The class assigned to an observation x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is y ^ = arg ⁡ min ℓ ∈ Y ‖ μ → ℓ − x → ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\arg \min }_{\ell \in \mathbf {Y} }\|{\vec {\mu }}_{\ell }-{\vec {x}}\|} .

  Read more →
• 

  Dominance-based rough set approach

  The dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) is an extension of rough set theory for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), introduced by Greco, Matarazzo and Słowiński. The main change compared to the classical rough sets is the substitution for the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits one to deal with inconsistencies typical to consideration of criteria and preference-ordered decision classes. == Multicriteria classification (sorting) == Multicriteria classification (sorting) is one of the problems considered within MCDA and can be stated as follows: given a set of objects evaluated by a set of criteria (attributes with preference-order domains), assign these objects to some pre-defined and preference-ordered decision classes, such that each object is assigned to exactly one class. Due to the preference ordering, improvement of evaluations of an object on the criteria should not worsen its class assignment. The sorting problem is very similar to the problem of classification, however, in the latter, the objects are evaluated by regular attributes and the decision classes are not necessarily preference ordered. The problem of multicriteria classification is also referred to as ordinal classification problem with monotonicity constraints and often appears in real-life application when ordinal and monotone properties follow from the domain knowledge about the problem. As an illustrative example, consider the problem of evaluation in a high school. The director of the school wants to assign students (objects) to three classes: bad, medium and good (notice that class good is preferred to medium and medium is preferred to bad). Each student is described by three criteria: level in Physics, Mathematics and Literature, each taking one of three possible values bad, medium and good. Criteria are preference-ordered and improving the level from one of the subjects should not result in worse global evaluation (class). As a more serious example, consider classification of bank clients, from the viewpoint of bankruptcy risk, into classes safe and risky. This may involve such characteristics as "return on equity (ROE)", "return on investment (ROI)" and "return on sales (ROS)". The domains of these attributes are not simply ordered but involve a preference order since, from the viewpoint of bank managers, greater values of ROE, ROI or ROS are better for clients being analysed for bankruptcy risk . Thus, these attributes are criteria. Neglecting this information in knowledge discovery may lead to wrong conclusions. == Data representation == === Decision table === In DRSA, data are often presented using a particular form of decision table. Formally, a DRSA decision table is a 4-tuple S = ⟨ U , Q , V , f ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle U,Q,V,f\rangle } , where U {\displaystyle U\,\!} is a finite set of objects, Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is a finite set of criteria, V = ⋃ q ∈ Q V q {\displaystyle V=\bigcup {}_{q\in Q}V_{q}} where V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} is the domain of the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} and f : U × Q → V {\displaystyle f\colon U\times Q\to V} is an information function such that f ( x , q ) ∈ V q {\displaystyle f(x,q)\in V_{q}} for every ( x , q ) ∈ U × Q {\displaystyle (x,q)\in U\times Q} . The set Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is divided into condition criteria (set C ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle C\neq \emptyset } ) and the decision criterion (class) d {\displaystyle d\,\!} . Notice, that f ( x , q ) {\displaystyle f(x,q)\,\!} is an evaluation of object x {\displaystyle x\,\!} on criterion q ∈ C {\displaystyle q\in C} , while f ( x , d ) {\displaystyle f(x,d)\,\!} is the class assignment (decision value) of the object. An example of decision table is shown in Table 1 below. === Outranking relation === It is assumed that the domain of a criterion q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is completely preordered by an outranking relation ⪰ q {\displaystyle \succeq _{q}} ; x ⪰ q y {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y} means that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is at least as good as (outranks) y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} . Without loss of generality, we assume that the domain of q {\displaystyle q\,\!} is a subset of reals, V q ⊆ R {\displaystyle V_{q}\subseteq \mathbb {R} } , and that the outranking relation is a simple order between real numbers ≥ {\displaystyle \geq \,\!} such that the following relation holds: x ⪰ q y ⟺ f ( x , q ) ≥ f ( y , q ) {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y\iff f(x,q)\geq f(y,q)} . This relation is straightforward for gain-type ("the more, the better") criterion, e.g. company profit. For cost-type ("the less, the better") criterion, e.g. product price, this relation can be satisfied by negating the values from V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} . === Decision classes and class unions === Let T = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle T=\{1,\ldots ,n\}\,\!} . The domain of decision criterion, V d {\displaystyle V_{d}\,\!} consist of n {\displaystyle n\,\!} elements (without loss of generality we assume V d = T {\displaystyle V_{d}=T\,\!} ) and induces a partition of U {\displaystyle U\,\!} into n {\displaystyle n\,\!} classes Cl = { C l t , t ∈ T } {\displaystyle {\textbf {Cl}}=\{Cl_{t},t\in T\}} , where C l t = { x ∈ U : f ( x , d ) = t } {\displaystyle Cl_{t}=\{x\in U\colon f(x,d)=t\}} . Each object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} is assigned to one and only one class C l t , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t},t\in T} . The classes are preference-ordered according to an increasing order of class indices, i.e. for all r , s ∈ T {\displaystyle r,s\in T} such that r ≥ s {\displaystyle r\geq s\,\!} , the objects from C l r {\displaystyle Cl_{r}\,\!} are strictly preferred to the objects from C l s {\displaystyle Cl_{s}\,\!} . For this reason, we can consider the upward and downward unions of classes, defined respectively, as: C l t ≥ = ⋃ s ≥ t C l s C l t ≤ = ⋃ s ≤ t C l s t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }=\bigcup _{s\geq t}Cl_{s}\qquad Cl_{t}^{\leq }=\bigcup _{s\leq t}Cl_{s}\qquad t\in T} == Main concepts == === Dominance === We say that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} dominates y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted by x D p y {\displaystyle xD_{p}y\,\!} , if x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is better than y {\displaystyle y\,\!} on every criterion from P {\displaystyle P\,\!} , x ⪰ q y , ∀ q ∈ P {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y,\,\forall q\in P} . For each P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , the dominance relation D P {\displaystyle D_{P}\,\!} is reflexive and transitive, i.e. it is a partial pre-order. Given P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} and x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , let D P + ( x ) = { y ∈ U : y D p x } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{+}(x)=\{y\in U\colon yD_{p}x\}} D P − ( x ) = { y ∈ U : x D p y } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{-}(x)=\{y\in U\colon xD_{p}y\}} represent P-dominating set and P-dominated set with respect to x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , respectively. === Rough approximations === The key idea of the rough set philosophy is approximation of one knowledge by another knowledge. In DRSA, the knowledge being approximated is a collection of upward and downward unions of decision classes and the "granules of knowledge" used for approximation are P-dominating and P-dominated sets. The P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≥ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≥ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\geq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ∩ C l t ≥ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\geq }\neq \emptyset \}} Analogously, the P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≤ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≤ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\leq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ∩ C l t ≤ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\leq }\neq \emptyset \}} Lower approximations group the objects which certainly belong to class union C l t ≥ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }} (respectively C l t ≤ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq }} ). This certainty comes from the fact, that object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} belongs to the lower approximation P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} (respectively P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underl

  Read more →
• 

  Agent Ruby

  Agent Ruby (1998–2002) by Lynn Hershman Leeson is an interactive, multiuser work using artificial intelligence. == Description == On Agent Ruby's website, "Agent Ruby's Edream Portal," a female face moves her eyes and lips. Ruby, named from Hershman Leeson's own film, Teknolust, answers questions and often responds that she needs a better algorithm to answer questions not within her database. The work, created with AI, explores relationships between real and virtual worlds. Hershman Leeson had created an earlier version of Ruby, CyberRoberta, which was a custom-made doll with webcam eyes that interacted with the internet. The work in a gallery provides a screen and a sign inviting gallery-goers to "Chat with Ruby." == Artificial intelligence == In 2015 when Agent Ruby was exhibited at the gallery Modern Art Oxford, a review in Aesthetica Magazine described it as an artificial intelligence agent. A review in New Scientist noted that "Ruby is a fast learner, but perhaps not a natural conversationalist." A 2024 list of "25 Essential AI Artworks" published by ARTnews wrote that while "Agent Ruby's capabilities seem limited by today's standards," it was extensive for its day. == Publications and exhibitions == Agent Ruby was commissioned and displayed at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Modern Art Oxford, and the ZKM Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, Germany. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) presented Lynn Hershman Leeson: The Agent Ruby Files, March 30 through June 2, 2013 which presented the project server's archive of user conversations over the 12 years of exhibitions.

  Read more →
• 

  Natarajan dimension

  In the theory of Probably Approximately Correct Machine Learning, the Natarajan dimension characterizes the complexity of learning a set of functions, generalizing from the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension for boolean functions to multi-class functions. Originally introduced as the Generalized Dimension by Natarajan, it was subsequently renamed the Natarajan Dimension by Haussler and Long. == Definition == Let H {\displaystyle H} be a set of functions from a set X {\displaystyle X} to a set Y {\displaystyle Y} . H {\displaystyle H} shatters a set C ⊂ X {\displaystyle C\subset X} if there exist two functions f 0 , f 1 ∈ H {\displaystyle f_{0},f_{1}\in H} such that For every x ∈ C , f 0 ( x ) ≠ f 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in C,f_{0}(x)\neq f_{1}(x)} . For every B ⊂ C {\displaystyle B\subset C} , there exists a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that for all x ∈ B , h ( x ) = f 0 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in B,h(x)=f_{0}(x)} and for all x ∈ C − B , h ( x ) = f 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in C-B,h(x)=f_{1}(x)} . The Natarajan dimension of H is the maximal cardinality of a set shattered by H {\displaystyle H} . It is easy to see that if | Y | = 2 {\displaystyle |Y|=2} , the Natarajan dimension collapses to the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension. Shalev-Shwartz and Ben-David present comprehensive material on multi-class learning and the Natarajan dimension, including uniform convergence and learnability. Recently, Cohen et al showed that the Natarajan dimension is the dominant term governing agnostic multi-class PAC learnability.

  Read more →
• 

  Language identification in the limit

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

  Read more →