AI Coding Vscode Extension

AI Coding Vscode Extension — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Region Based Convolutional Neural Networks

Region-based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN) are a family of machine learning models for computer vision, and specifically object detection and localization. The original goal of R-CNN was to take an input image and produce a set of bounding boxes as output, where each bounding box contains an object and also the category (e.g. car or pedestrian) of the object. In general, R-CNN architectures perform selective search over feature maps outputted by a CNN. R-CNN has been extended to perform other computer vision tasks, such as: tracking objects from a drone-mounted camera, locating text in an image, and enabling object detection in Google Lens. Mask R-CNN is also one of seven tasks in the MLPerf Training Benchmark, which is a competition to speed up the training of neural networks. == History == The following covers some of the versions of R-CNN that have been developed. November 2013: R-CNN. April 2015: Fast R-CNN. June 2015: Faster R-CNN. March 2017: Mask R-CNN. December 2017: Cascade R-CNN is trained with increasing Intersection over Union (IoU, also known as the Jaccard index) thresholds, making each stage more selective against nearby false positives. June 2019: Mesh R-CNN adds the ability to generate a 3D mesh from a 2D image. == Architecture == For review articles see. === Selective search === Given an image (or an image-like feature map), selective search (also called Hierarchical Grouping) first segments the image by the algorithm in (Felzenszwalb and Huttenlocher, 2004), then performs the following: Input: (colour) image Output: Set of object location hypotheses L Segment image into initial regions R = {r1, ..., rn} using Felzenszwalb and Huttenlocher (2004) Initialise similarity set S = ∅ foreach Neighbouring region pair (ri, rj) do Calculate similarity s(ri, rj) S = S ∪ s(ri, rj) while S ≠ ∅ do Get highest similarity s(ri, rj) = max(S) Merge corresponding regions rt = ri ∪ rj Remove similarities regarding ri: S = S \ s(ri, r∗) Remove similarities regarding rj: S = S \ s(r∗, rj) Calculate similarity set St between rt and its neighbours S = S ∪ St R = R ∪ rt Extract object location boxes L from all regions in R === R-CNN === With R-CNN, prediction follows a two-step process. A preprocessing selective search step generates a large set of candidate objects (typically as many as 2000), known as regions of interest (ROI). These are forwarded to a CNN, which predicts an object class score and bounding box estimate, independently for each ROI. Importantly, the ROIs are heavily filtered to remove excess candidates. This is achieved using two mechanism. Filtering begins by removing ROIs assigned to the background category. This is a specialized category, which is scored by the CNN alongside other categories. An unfortunate reality is that remaining ROIs typically suffer from heavy duplication. Namely, multiple ROIs that cover same objects in the image are all assigned non-background categories. This is resolved by a heuristic non-maximum suppression (NMS) step. === Fast R-CNN === While the original R-CNN independently computed the neural network features on each of as many as two thousand regions of interest, Fast R-CNN runs the neural network once on the whole image. At the end of the network is a ROIPooling module, which slices out each ROI from the network's output tensor, reshapes it, and classifies it. As in the original R-CNN, the Fast R-CNN uses selective search to generate its region proposals. === Faster R-CNN === While Fast R-CNN used selective search to generate ROIs, Faster R-CNN integrates the ROI generation into the neural network itself. === Mask R-CNN === While previous versions of R-CNN focused on object detections, Mask R-CNN adds instance segmentation. Mask R-CNN also replaced ROIPooling with a new method called ROIAlign, which can represent fractions of a pixel.
Read more →
Out-of-bag error

Out-of-bag (OOB) error, also called out-of-bag estimate, is a method of measuring the prediction error of random forests, boosted decision trees, and other machine learning models utilizing bootstrap aggregating (bagging). Bagging uses subsampling with replacement to create training samples for the model to learn from. OOB error is the mean prediction error on each training sample xi, using only the trees that did not have xi in their bootstrap sample. Bootstrap aggregating allows one to define an out-of-bag estimate of the prediction performance improvement by evaluating predictions on those observations that were not used in the building of the next base learner. == Out-of-bag dataset == When bootstrap aggregating is performed, two independent sets are created. One set, the bootstrap sample, is the data chosen to be "in-the-bag" by sampling with replacement. The out-of-bag set is all data not chosen in the sampling process. When this process is repeated, such as when building a random forest, many bootstrap samples and OOB sets are created. The OOB sets can be aggregated into one dataset, but each sample is only considered out-of-bag for the trees that do not include it in their bootstrap sample. The picture below shows that for each bag sampled, the data is separated into two groups. This example shows how bagging could be used in the context of diagnosing disease. A set of patients are the original dataset, but each model is trained only by the patients in its bag. The patients in each out-of-bag set can be used to test their respective models. The test would consider whether the model can accurately determine if the patient has the disease. == Calculating out-of-bag error == Since each out-of-bag set is not used to train the model, it is a good test for the performance of the model. The specific calculation of OOB error depends on the implementation of the model, but a general calculation is as follows. Find all models (or trees, in the case of a random forest) that are not trained by the OOB instance. Take the majority vote of these models' result for the OOB instance, compared to the true value of the OOB instance. Compile the OOB error for all instances in the OOB dataset. The bagging process can be customized to fit the needs of a model. To ensure an accurate model, the bootstrap training sample size should be close to that of the original set. Also, the number of iterations (trees) of the model (forest) should be considered to find the true OOB error. The OOB error will stabilize over many iterations so starting with a high number of iterations is a good idea. Shown in the example to the right, the OOB error can be found using the method above once the forest is set up. == Comparison to cross-validation == Out-of-bag error and cross-validation (CV) are different methods of measuring the error estimate of a machine learning model. Over many iterations, the two methods should produce a very similar error estimate. That is, once the OOB error stabilizes, it will converge to the cross-validation (specifically leave-one-out cross-validation) error. The advantage of the OOB method is that it requires less computation and allows one to test the model as it is being trained. == Accuracy and Consistency == Out-of-bag error is used frequently for error estimation within random forests but with the conclusion of a study done by Silke Janitza and Roman Hornung, out-of-bag error has shown to overestimate in settings that include an equal number of observations from all response classes (balanced samples), small sample sizes, a large number of predictor variables, small correlation between predictors, and weak effects.
Read more →
Spiking neural network

Spiking neural networks (SNNs) are artificial neural networks (ANN) that mimic natural neural networks. These models leverage timing of discrete spikes as the main information carrier. In addition to neuronal and synaptic state, SNNs incorporate the concept of time into their operating model. The idea is that neurons in the SNN do not transmit information at each propagation cycle (as it happens with typical multi-layer perceptron networks), but rather transmit information only when a membrane potential—an intrinsic quality of the neuron related to its membrane electrical charge—reaches a specific value, called the threshold. When the membrane potential reaches the threshold, the neuron fires, and generates a signal that travels to other neurons which, in turn, increase or decrease their potentials in response to this signal. A neuron model that fires at the moment of threshold crossing is also called a spiking neuron model. While spike rates can be considered the analogue of the variable output of a traditional ANN, neurobiology research indicated that high speed processing cannot be performed solely through a rate-based scheme. For example humans can perform an image recognition task requiring no more than 10ms of processing time per neuron through the successive layers (going from the retina to the temporal lobe). This time window is too short for rate-based encoding. The precise spike timings in a small set of spiking neurons also has a higher information coding capacity compared with a rate-based approach. The most prominent spiking neuron model is the leaky integrate-and-fire model. In that model, the momentary activation level (modeled as a differential equation) is normally considered to be the neuron's state, with incoming spikes pushing this value higher or lower, until the state eventually either decays or—if the firing threshold is reached—the neuron fires. After firing, the state variable is reset to a lower value. Various decoding methods exist for interpreting the outgoing spike train as a real-value number, relying on either the frequency of spikes (rate-code), the time-to-first-spike after stimulation, or the interval between spikes. == History == Many multi-layer artificial neural networks are fully connected, receiving input from every neuron in the previous layer and signalling every neuron in the subsequent layer. Although these networks have achieved breakthroughs, they do not match biological networks and do not mimic neurons. The biology-inspired Hodgkin–Huxley model of a spiking neuron was proposed in 1952. This model described how action potentials are initiated and propagated. Communication between neurons, which requires the exchange of chemical neurotransmitters in the synaptic gap, is described in models such as the integrate-and-fire model, FitzHugh–Nagumo model (1961–1962), and Hindmarsh–Rose model (1984). The leaky integrate-and-fire model (or a derivative) is commonly used as it is easier to compute than Hodgkin–Huxley. While the notion of an artificial spiking neural network became popular only in the twenty-first century, studies between 1980 and 1995 supported the concept. The first models of this type of ANN appeared to simulate non-algorithmic intelligent information processing systems. However, the notion of the spiking neural network as a mathematical model was first worked on in the early 1970s. As of 2019 SNNs lagged behind ANNs in accuracy, but the gap is decreasing, and has vanished on some tasks. == Underpinnings == Information in the brain is represented as action potentials (neuron spikes), which may group into spike trains or coordinated waves. A fundamental question of neuroscience is to determine whether neurons communicate by a rate or temporal code. Temporal coding implies that a single spiking neuron can replace hundreds of hidden units on a conventional neural net. SNNs define a neuron's current state as its potential (possibly modeled as a differential equation). An input pulse causes the potential to rise and then gradually decline. Encoding schemes can interpret these pulse sequences as a number, considering pulse frequency and pulse interval. Using the precise time of pulse occurrence, a neural network can consider more information and offer better computing properties. SNNs compute in the continuous domain. Such neurons test for activation only when their potentials reach a certain value. When a neuron is activated, it produces a signal that is passed to connected neurons, accordingly raising or lowering their potentials. The SNN approach produces a continuous output instead of the binary output of traditional ANNs. Pulse trains are not easily interpretable, hence the need for encoding schemes. However, a pulse train representation may be more suited for processing spatiotemporal data (or real-world sensory data classification). SNNs connect neurons only to nearby neurons so that they process input blocks separately (similar to CNN using filters). They consider time by encoding information as pulse trains so as not to lose information. This avoids the complexity of a recurrent neural network (RNN). Impulse neurons are more powerful computational units than traditional artificial neurons. SNNs are theoretically more powerful than so called "second-generation networks" defined as ANNs "based on computational units that apply activation function with a continuous set of possible output values to a weighted sum (or polynomial) of the inputs"; however, SNN training issues and hardware requirements limit their use. Although unsupervised biologically inspired learning methods are available such as Hebbian learning and STDP, no effective supervised training method is suitable for SNNs that can provide better performance than second-generation networks. Spike-based activation of SNNs is not differentiable, thus gradient descent-based backpropagation (BP) is not available. SNNs have much larger computational costs for simulating realistic neural models than traditional ANNs. Pulse-coupled neural networks (PCNN) are often confused with SNNs. A PCNN can be seen as a kind of SNN. Researchers are actively working on various topics. The first concerns differentiability. The expressions for both the forward- and backward-learning methods contain the derivative of the neural activation function which is not differentiable because a neuron's output is either 1 when it spikes, and 0 otherwise. This all-or-nothing behavior disrupts gradients and makes these neurons unsuitable for gradient-based optimization. Approaches to resolving it include: resorting to entirely biologically inspired local learning rules for the hidden units translating conventionally trained "rate-based" NNs to SNNs smoothing the network model to be continuously differentiable defining an SG (Surrogate Gradient) as a continuous relaxation of the real gradients The second concerns the optimization algorithm. Standard BP can be expensive in terms of computation, memory, and communication and may be poorly suited to the hardware that implements it (e.g., a computer, brain, or neuromorphic device). Incorporating additional neuron dynamics such as Spike Frequency Adaptation (SFA) is a notable advance, enhancing efficiency and computational power. These neurons sit between biological complexity and computational complexity. Originating from biological insights, SFA offers significant computational benefits by reducing power usage, especially in cases of repetitive or intense stimuli. This adaptation improves signal/noise clarity and introduces an elementary short-term memory at the neuron level, which in turn, improves accuracy and efficiency. This was mostly achieved using compartmental neuron models. The simpler versions are of neuron models with adaptive thresholds, are an indirect way of achieving SFA. It equips SNNs with improved learning capabilities, even with constrained synaptic plasticity, and elevates computational efficiency. This feature lessens the demand on network layers by decreasing the need for spike processing, thus lowering computational load and memory access time—essential aspects of neural computation. Moreover, SNNs utilizing neurons capable of SFA achieve levels of accuracy that rival those of conventional ANNs, while also requiring fewer neurons for comparable tasks. This efficiency streamlines the computational workflow and conserves space and energy, while maintaining technical integrity. High-performance deep spiking neural networks can operate with 0.3 spikes per neuron. == Applications == SNNs can in principle be applied to the same applications as traditional ANNs. In addition, SNNs can model the central nervous system of biological organisms, such as an insect seeking food without prior knowledge of the environment. Due to their relative realism, they can be used to study biological neural circuits. Starting with a hypothesis about the topology of a biological neuronal circuit and its functi
Read more →
Large margin nearest neighbor

Large margin nearest neighbor (LMNN) classification is a statistical machine learning algorithm for metric learning. It learns a pseudometric designed for k-nearest neighbor classification. The algorithm is based on semidefinite programming, a sub-class of convex optimization. The goal of supervised learning (more specifically classification) is to learn a decision rule that can categorize data instances into pre-defined classes. The k-nearest neighbor rule assumes a training data set of labeled instances (i.e. the classes are known). It classifies a new data instance with the class obtained from the majority vote of the k closest (labeled) training instances. Closeness is measured with a pre-defined metric. Large margin nearest neighbors is an algorithm that learns this global (pseudo-)metric in a supervised fashion to improve the classification accuracy of the k-nearest neighbor rule. == Setup == The main intuition behind LMNN is to learn a pseudometric under which all data instances in the training set are surrounded by at least k instances that share the same class label. If this is achieved, the leave-one-out error (a special case of cross validation) is minimized. Let the training data consist of a data set D = { ( x → 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x → n , y n ) } ⊂ R d × C {\displaystyle D=\{({\vec {x}}_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,({\vec {x}}_{n},y_{n})\}\subset R^{d}\times C} , where the set of possible class categories is C = { 1 , … , c } {\displaystyle C=\{1,\dots ,c\}} . The algorithm learns a pseudometric of the type d ( x → i , x → j ) = ( x → i − x → j ) ⊤ M ( x → i − x → j ) {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})=({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})^{\top }\mathbf {M} ({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})} . For d ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle d(\cdot ,\cdot )} to be well defined, the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } needs to be positive semi-definite. The Euclidean metric is a special case, where M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is the identity matrix. This generalization is often (falsely) referred to as Mahalanobis metric. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of the metric under varying M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } . The two circles show the set of points with equal distance to the center x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . In the Euclidean case this set is a circle, whereas under the modified (Mahalanobis) metric it becomes an ellipsoid. The algorithm distinguishes between two types of special data points: target neighbors and impostors. === Target neighbors === Target neighbors are selected before learning. Each instance x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} has exactly k {\displaystyle k} different target neighbors within D {\displaystyle D} , which all share the same class label y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} . The target neighbors are the data points that should become nearest neighbors under the learned metric. Let us denote the set of target neighbors for a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} as N i {\displaystyle N_{i}} . === Impostors === An impostor of a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} is another data point x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} with a different class label (i.e. y i ≠ y j {\displaystyle y_{i}\neq y_{j}} ) which is one of the nearest neighbors of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . During learning the algorithm tries to minimize the number of impostors for all data instances in the training set. == Algorithm == Large margin nearest neighbors optimizes the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } with the help of semidefinite programming. The objective is twofold: For every data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} , the target neighbors should be close and the impostors should be far away. Figure 1 shows the effect of such an optimization on an illustrative example. The learned metric causes the input vector x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} to be surrounded by training instances of the same class. If it was a test point, it would be classified correctly under the k = 3 {\displaystyle k=3} nearest neighbor rule. The first optimization goal is achieved by minimizing the average distance between instances and their target neighbors ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})} . The second goal is achieved by penalizing distances to impostors x → l {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{l}} that are less than one unit further away than target neighbors x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} (and therefore pushing them out of the local neighborhood of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} ). The resulting value to be minimized can be stated as: ∑ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i [ d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ] + {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}[d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})]_{+}} With a hinge loss function [ ⋅ ] + = max ( ⋅ , 0 ) {\textstyle [\cdot ]_{+}=\max(\cdot ,0)} , which ensures that impostor proximity is not penalized when outside the margin. The margin of exactly one unit fixes the scale of the matrix M {\displaystyle M} . Any alternative choice c > 0 {\displaystyle c>0} would result in a rescaling of M {\displaystyle M} by a factor of 1 / c {\displaystyle 1/c} . The final optimization problem becomes: min M ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) + λ ∑ i , j , l ξ i j l {\displaystyle \min _{\mathbf {M} }\sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+\lambda \sum _{i,j,l}\xi _{ijl}} ∀ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i {\displaystyle \forall _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}} d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ≤ ξ i j l {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})\leq \xi _{ijl}} ξ i j l ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}\geq 0} M ⪰ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} \succeq 0} The hyperparameter λ > 0 {\textstyle \lambda >0} is some positive constant (typically set through cross-validation). Here the variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} (together with two types of constraints) replace the term in the cost function. They play a role similar to slack variables to absorb the extent of violations of the impostor constraints. The last constraint ensures that M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is positive semi-definite. The optimization problem is an instance of semidefinite programming (SDP). Although SDPs tend to suffer from high computational complexity, this particular SDP instance can be solved very efficiently due to the underlying geometric properties of the problem. In particular, most impostor constraints are naturally satisfied and do not need to be enforced during runtime (i.e. the set of variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} is sparse). A particularly well suited solver technique is the working set method, which keeps a small set of constraints that are actively enforced and monitors the remaining (likely satisfied) constraints only occasionally to ensure correctness. == Extensions and efficient solvers == LMNN was extended to multiple local metrics in the 2008 paper. This extension significantly improves the classification error, but involves a more expensive optimization problem. In their 2009 publication in the Journal of Machine Learning Research, Weinberger and Saul derive an efficient solver for the semi-definite program. It can learn a metric for the MNIST handwritten digit data set in several hours, involving billions of pairwise constraints. An open source Matlab implementation is freely available at the authors web page. Kumal et al. extended the algorithm to incorporate local invariances to multivariate polynomial transformations and improved regularization.
Read more →
Web Intents

Web Intents was an experimental framework for web-based inter-application communication and service discovery. Web Intents consists of a discovery mechanism and a very light-weight RPC system between web applications, modelled after the Intents system in Android. In the context of the framework an Intent equals an action to be performed by a provider. Web Intents allow two web applications to communicate with each other, without either of them having to actually know what the other one is. == Support == === Client === Google Chrome versions 18 to 23 natively supported Web Intents. This support was disabled in version 24, citing the existence of a "number of areas for development in both the API and specific user experience in Chrome". There is a JavaScript shim with support for IE 8, IE 9, Opera, Safari, Firefox 3+ and Chrome 3+. === Server === There are some Web Intents proxy pages that make available some real services that don't yet support intents. AddThis supports Web Intents by their sharing tools regardless of browser support. == History == Paul Kinlan of Google announced the Web Intents project in December 2010. He soon released a prototype API to GitHub. In August 2011 Google announced that Chrome would support Web Intents. Google and Mozilla have started co-operating to unify Web Intents and Mozilla's Web Activities (which tries to solve the same problem) into one proposal. In November 2012, Greg Billock of Google announced that experimental support of Web Intents had been removed from Chrome.
Read more →
Premature convergence

Premature convergence is an unwanted effect in evolutionary algorithms (EA), a metaheuristic that mimics the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm for solving an optimization problem. The effect means that the population of an EA has converged too early, resulting in being suboptimal. In this context, the parental solutions, through the aid of genetic operators, are not able to generate offspring that are superior to, or outperform, their parents. Premature convergence is a common problem found in evolutionary algorithms, as it leads to a loss, or convergence of, a large number of alleles, subsequently making it very difficult to search for a specific gene in which the alleles were present. An allele is considered lost if, in a population, a gene is present, where all individuals are sharing the same value for that particular gene. An allele is, as defined by De Jong, considered to be a converged allele, when 95% of a population share the same value for a certain gene. == Strategies for preventing premature convergence == Strategies to regain genetic variation can be: a mating strategy called incest prevention, uniform crossover, mimicking sexual selection, favored replacement of similar individuals (preselection or crowding), segmentation of individuals of similar fitness (fitness sharing), increasing population size niche and specie The genetic variation can also be regained by mutation though this process is highly random. A general strategy to reduce the risk of premature convergence is to use structured populations instead of the commonly used panmictic ones. == Identification of the occurrence of premature convergence == It is hard to determine when premature convergence has occurred, and it is equally hard to predict its presence in the future. One measure is to use the difference between the average and maximum fitness values, as used by Patnaik & Srinivas, to then vary the crossover and mutation probabilities. Population diversity is another measure which has been extensively used in studies to measure premature convergence. However, although it has been widely accepted that a decrease in the population diversity directly leads to premature convergence, there have been little studies done on the analysis of population diversity. In other words, by using the term population diversity, the argument for a study in preventing premature convergence lacks robustness, unless specified what their definition of population diversity is. There are models to counter the effect and risk of premature convergence that do not compromise core GA parameters like population size, mutation rate, and other core mechanisms. These models were inspired by biological ecology, where genetic interactions are limited by external mechanisms such as spatial topologies or speciation. These ecological models, such as the Eco-GA, adopt diffusion-based strategies to improve the robustness of GA runs and increase the likelihood of reaching near-global optima. == Causes for premature convergence == There are a number of presumed or hypothesized causes for the occurrence of premature convergence. === Self-adaptive mutations === Rechenberg introduced the idea of self-adaptation of mutation distributions in evolution strategies. According to Rechenberg, the control parameters for these mutation distributions evolved internally through self-adaptation, rather than predetermination. He called it the 1/5-success rule of evolution strategies (1 + 1)-ES: The step size control parameter would be increased by some factor if the relative frequency of positive mutations through a determined period of time is larger than 1/5, vice versa if it is smaller than 1/5. Self-adaptive mutations may very well be one of the causes for premature convergence. Accurately locating of optima can be enhanced by self-adaptive mutation, as well as accelerating the search for this optima. This has been widely recognized, though the mechanism's underpinnings of this have been poorly studied, as it is often unclear whether the optima is found locally or globally. Self-adaptive methods can cause global convergence to global optimum, provided that the selection methods used are using elitism, as well as that the rule of self-adaptation doesn't interfere with the mutation distribution, which has the property of ensuring a positive minimum probability when hitting a random subset. This is for non-convex objective functions with sets that include bounded lower levels of non-zero measurements. A study by Rudolph suggests that self-adaption mechanisms among elitist evolution strategies do resemble the 1/5-success rule, and could very well get caught by a local optimum that include a positive probability. === Panmictic populations === Most EAs use unstructured or panmictic populations where basically every individual in the population is eligible for mate selection based on fitness. Thus, The genetic information of an only slightly better individual can spread in a population within a few generations, provided that no better other offspring is produced during this time. Especially in comparatively small populations, this can quickly lead to a loss of genotypic diversity and thus to premature convergence. A well-known countermeasure is to switch to alternative population models which introduce substructures into the population that preserve genotypic diversity over a longer period of time and thus counteract the tendency towards premature convergence. This has been shown for various EAs such as genetic algorithms, the evolution strategy, other EAs or memetic algorithms.
Read more →
Modern Hopfield network

Modern Hopfield networks (also known as Dense Associative Memories) are generalizations of the classical Hopfield networks that break the linear scaling relationship between the number of input features and the number of stored memories. This is achieved by introducing stronger non-linearities (either in the energy function or neurons’ activation functions) leading to super-linear (even an exponential) memory storage capacity as a function of the number of feature neurons. The network still requires a sufficient number of hidden neurons. The key theoretical idea behind the modern Hopfield networks is to use an energy function and an update rule that is more sharply peaked around the stored memories in the space of neuron’s configurations compared to the classical Hopfield network. == Classical Hopfield networks == Hopfield networks are recurrent neural networks with dynamical trajectories converging to fixed point attractor states and described by an energy function. The state of each model neuron i {\textstyle i} is defined by a time-dependent variable V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} , which can be chosen to be either discrete or continuous. A complete model describes the mathematics of how the future state of activity of each neuron depends on the known present or previous activity of all the neurons. In the original Hopfield model of associative memory, the variables were binary, and the dynamics were described by a one-at-a-time update of the state of the neurons. An energy function quadratic in the V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} was defined, and the dynamics consisted of changing the activity of each single neuron i {\displaystyle i} only if doing so would lower the total energy of the system. This same idea was extended to the case of V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} being a continuous variable representing the output of neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} being a monotonic function of an input current. The dynamics became expressed as a set of first-order differential equations for which the "energy" of the system always decreased. The energy in the continuous case has one term which is quadratic in the V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} (as in the binary model), and a second term which depends on the gain function (neuron's activation function). While having many desirable properties of associative memory, both of these classical systems suffer from a small memory storage capacity, which scales linearly with the number of input features. == Discrete variables == A simple example of the Modern Hopfield network can be written in terms of binary variables V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} that represent the active V i = + 1 {\displaystyle V_{i}=+1} and inactive V i = − 1 {\displaystyle V_{i}=-1} state of the model neuron i {\displaystyle i} . E = − ∑ μ = 1 N mem F ( ∑ i = 1 N f ξ μ i V i ) {\displaystyle E=-\sum \limits _{\mu =1}^{N_{\text{mem}}}F{\Big (}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N_{f}}\xi _{\mu i}V_{i}{\Big )}} In this formula the weights ξ μ i {\textstyle \xi _{\mu i}} represent the matrix of memory vectors (index μ = 1... N mem {\displaystyle \mu =1...N_{\text{mem}}} enumerates different memories, and index i = 1... N f {\displaystyle i=1...N_{f}} enumerates the content of each memory corresponding to the i {\displaystyle i} -th feature neuron), and the function F ( x ) {\displaystyle F(x)} is a rapidly growing non-linear function. The update rule for individual neurons (in the asynchronous case) can be written in the following form V i ( t + 1 ) = sign ⁡ [ ∑ μ = 1 N mem ( F ( ξ μ i + ∑ j ≠ i ξ μ j V j ( t ) ) − F ( − ξ μ i + ∑ j ≠ i ξ μ j V j ( t ) ) ) ] {\displaystyle V_{i}^{(t+1)}=\operatorname {sign} {\bigg [}\sum \limits _{\mu =1}^{N_{\text{mem}}}{\bigg (}F{\Big (}\xi _{\mu i}+\sum \limits _{j\neq i}\xi _{\mu j}V_{j}^{(t)}{\Big )}-F{\Big (}-\xi _{\mu i}+\sum \limits _{j\neq i}\xi _{\mu j}V_{j}^{(t)}{\Big )}{\bigg )}{\bigg ]}} which states that in order to calculate the updated state of the i {\textstyle i} -th neuron the network compares two energies: the energy of the network with the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron in the ON state and the energy of the network with the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron in the OFF state, given the states of the remaining neuron. The updated state of the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron selects the state that has the lowest of the two energies. In the limiting case when the non-linear energy function is quadratic F ( x ) = x 2 {\displaystyle F(x)=x^{2}} these equations reduce to the familiar energy function and the update rule for the classical binary Hopfield network. The memory storage capacity of these networks can be calculated for random binary patterns. For the power energy function F ( x ) = x n {\displaystyle F(x)=x^{n}} the maximal number of memories that can be stored and retrieved from this network without errors is given by N mem max ≈ 1 2 ( 2 n − 3 ) ! ! N f n − 1 ln ⁡ ( N f ) {\displaystyle N_{\text{mem}}^{\max }\approx {\frac {1}{2(2n-3)!!}}{\frac {N_{f}^{n-1}}{\ln(N_{f})}}} For an exponential energy function F ( x ) = e x {\textstyle F(x)=e^{x}} the memory storage capacity is exponential in the number of feature neurons N mem max ≈ 2 N f / 2 {\displaystyle N_{\text{mem}}^{\max }\approx 2^{N_{f}/2}} == Continuous variables == Modern Hopfield networks or Dense Associative Memories can be best understood in continuous variables and continuous time. Consider the network architecture, shown in Fig.1, and the equations for the neurons' state evolutionwhere the currents of the feature neurons are denoted by x i {\textstyle x_{i}} , and the currents of the memory neurons are denoted by h μ {\displaystyle h_{\mu }} ( h {\displaystyle h} stands for hidden neurons). There are no synaptic connections among the feature neurons or the memory neurons. A matrix ξ μ i {\displaystyle \xi _{\mu i}} denotes the strength of synapses from a feature neuron i {\displaystyle i} to the memory neuron μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The synapses are assumed to be symmetric, so that the same value characterizes a different physical synapse from the memory neuron μ {\displaystyle \mu } to the feature neuron i {\displaystyle i} . The outputs of the memory neurons and the feature neurons are denoted by f μ {\displaystyle f_{\mu }} and g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} , which are non-linear functions of the corresponding currents. In general these outputs can depend on the currents of all the neurons in that layer so that f μ = f ( { h μ } ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }=f(\{h_{\mu }\})} and g i = g ( { x i } ) {\textstyle g_{i}=g(\{x_{i}\})} . It is convenient to define these activation function as derivatives of the Lagrangian functions for the two groups of neuronsThis way the specific form of the equations for neuron's states is completely defined once the Lagrangian functions are specified. Finally, the time constants for the two groups of neurons are denoted by τ f {\displaystyle \tau _{f}} and τ h {\displaystyle \tau _{h}} , I i {\displaystyle I_{i}} is the input current to the network that can be driven by the presented data. General systems of non-linear differential equations can have many complicated behaviors that can depend on the choice of the non-linearities and the initial conditions. For Hopfield networks, however, this is not the case - the dynamical trajectories always converge to a fixed point attractor state. This property is achieved because these equations are specifically engineered so that they have an underlying energy function The terms grouped into square brackets represent a Legendre transform of the Lagrangian function with respect to the states of the neurons. If the Hessian matrices of the Lagrangian functions are positive semi-definite, the energy function is guaranteed to decrease on the dynamical trajectory This property makes it possible to prove that the system of dynamical equations describing temporal evolution of neurons' activities will eventually reach a fixed point attractor state. In certain situations one can assume that the dynamics of hidden neurons equilibrates at a much faster time scale compared to the feature neurons, τ h ≪ τ f {\textstyle \tau _{h}\ll \tau _{f}} . In this case the steady state solution of the second equation in the system (1) can be used to express the currents of the hidden units through the outputs of the feature neurons. This makes it possible to reduce the general theory (1) to an effective theory for feature neurons only. The resulting effective update rules and the energies for various common choices of the Lagrangian functions are shown in Fig.2. In the case of log-sum-exponential Lagrangian function the update rule (if applied once) for the states of the feature neurons is the attention mechanism commonly used in many modern AI systems (see Ref. for the derivation of this result from the continuous time formulation). == Relationship to classical Hopfield network with continuous variables == Classical formulation of continuous Hopfield networks can be understood as a
Read more →
Expectation–maximization algorithm

In statistics, an expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm is an iterative method to find (local) maximum likelihood or maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates of parameters in statistical models, where the model depends on unobserved latent variables. The EM iteration alternates between performing an expectation (E) step, which creates a function for the expectation of the log-likelihood evaluated using the current estimate for the parameters, and a maximization (M) step, which computes parameters maximizing the expected log-likelihood found on the E step. These parameter-estimates are then used to determine the distribution of the latent variables in the next E step. It can be used, for example, to estimate a mixture of gaussians, or to solve the multiple linear regression problem. == History == The EM algorithm was explained and given its name in a classic 1977 paper by Arthur Dempster, Nan Laird, and Donald Rubin. They pointed out that the method had been "proposed many times in special circumstances" by earlier authors. One of the earliest is the gene-counting method for estimating allele frequencies by Cedric Smith. Another was proposed by H.O. Hartley in 1958, and Hartley and Hocking in 1977, from which many of the ideas in the Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper originated. Another one by S.K Ng, Thriyambakam Krishnan and G.J McLachlan in 1977. Hartley's ideas can be broadened to any grouped discrete distribution. A very detailed treatment of the EM method for exponential families was published by Rolf Sundberg in his thesis and several papers, following his collaboration with Per Martin-Löf and Anders Martin-Löf. The Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper in 1977 generalized the method and sketched a convergence analysis for a wider class of problems. The Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper established the EM method as an important tool of statistical analysis. See also Meng and van Dyk (1997). The convergence analysis of the Dempster–Laird–Rubin algorithm was flawed and a correct convergence analysis was published by C. F. Jeff Wu in 1983. Wu's proof established the EM method's convergence also outside of the exponential family, as claimed by Dempster–Laird–Rubin. == Introduction == The EM algorithm is used to find (local) maximum likelihood parameters of a statistical model in cases where the equations cannot be solved directly. Typically these models involve latent variables in addition to unknown parameters and known data observations. That is, either missing values exist among the data, or the model can be formulated more simply by assuming the existence of further unobserved data points. For example, a mixture model can be described more simply by assuming that each observed data point has a corresponding unobserved data point, or latent variable, specifying the mixture component to which each data point belongs. Finding a maximum likelihood solution typically requires taking the derivatives of the likelihood function with respect to all the unknown values, the parameters and the latent variables, and simultaneously solving the resulting equations. In statistical models with latent variables, this is usually impossible. Instead, the result is typically a set of interlocking equations in which the solution to the parameters requires the values of the latent variables and vice versa, but substituting one set of equations into the other produces an unsolvable equation. The EM algorithm proceeds from the observation that there is a way to solve these two sets of equations numerically. One can simply pick arbitrary values for one of the two sets of unknowns, use them to estimate the second set, then use these new values to find a better estimate of the first set, and then keep alternating between the two until the resulting values both converge to fixed points. It's not obvious that this will work, but it can be proven in this context. Additionally, it can be proven that the derivative of the likelihood is (arbitrarily close to) zero at that point, which in turn means that the point is either a local maximum or a saddle point. In general, multiple maxima may occur, with no guarantee that the global maximum will be found. Some likelihoods also have singularities in them, i.e., nonsensical maxima. For example, one of the solutions that may be found by EM in a mixture model involves setting one of the components to have zero variance and the mean parameter for the same component to be equal to one of the data points. == Description == === The symbols === Given the statistical model which generates a set X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } of observed data, a set of unobserved latent data or missing values Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , and a vector of unknown parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} , along with a likelihood function L ( θ ; X , Z ) = p ( X , Z ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle L({\boldsymbol {\theta }};\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} )=p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})} , the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the unknown parameters is determined by maximizing the marginal likelihood of the observed data L ( θ ; X ) = p ( X ∣ θ ) = ∫ p ( X , Z ∣ θ ) d Z = ∫ p ( X ∣ Z , θ ) p ( Z ∣ θ ) d Z {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}L({\boldsymbol {\theta }};\mathbf {X} )=p(\mathbf {X} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})&=\int p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})\,d\mathbf {Z} \\&=\int p(\mathbf {X} \mid \mathbf {Z} ,{\boldsymbol {\theta }})p(\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})\,d\mathbf {Z} \end{aligned}}} However, this quantity is often intractable since Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } is unobserved and the distribution of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } is unknown before attaining θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} . === The EM algorithm === The EM algorithm seeks to find the maximum likelihood estimate of the marginal likelihood by iteratively applying these two steps: More succinctly, we can write it as one equation: θ ( t + 1 ) = arg ⁡ max θ ⁡ E Z ∼ p ( ⋅ | X , θ ( t ) ) ⁡ [ log ⁡ p ( X , Z | θ ) ] {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{(t+1)}=\mathop {\arg \max } _{\boldsymbol {\theta }}\operatorname {E} _{\mathbf {Z} \sim p(\cdot |\mathbf {X} ,{\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{(t)})}\left[\log p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} |{\boldsymbol {\theta }})\right]\,} === Interpretation of the variables === The typical models to which EM is applied use Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } as a latent variable indicating membership in one of a set of groups: The observed data points X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } may be discrete (taking values in a finite or countably infinite set) or continuous (taking values in an uncountably infinite set). Associated with each data point may be a vector of observations. The missing values (aka latent variables) Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are discrete, drawn from a fixed number of values, and with one latent variable per observed unit. The parameters are continuous, and are of two kinds: Parameters that are associated with all data points, and those associated with a specific value of a latent variable (i.e., associated with all data points whose corresponding latent variable has that value). However, it is possible to apply EM to other sorts of models. The motivation is as follows. If the value of the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} is known, usually the value of the latent variables Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } can be found by maximizing the log-likelihood over all possible values of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , either simply by iterating over Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } or through an algorithm such as the Viterbi algorithm for hidden Markov models. Conversely, if we know the value of the latent variables Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , we can find an estimate of the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} fairly easily, typically by simply grouping the observed data points according to the value of the associated latent variable and averaging the values, or some function of the values, of the points in each group. This suggests an iterative algorithm, in the case where both θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} and Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are unknown: First, initialize the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} to some random values. Compute the probability of each possible value of ⁠ Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } ⁠, given ⁠ θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} ⁠. Then, use the just-computed values of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } to compute a better estimate for the parameters ⁠ θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} ⁠. Iterate steps 2 and 3 until convergence. The algorithm as just described monotonically approaches a local minimum of the cost function. == Properties == Although an EM iteration does increase the observed data (i.e., marginal) likelihood function, no guarantee exists that the sequence converges to a maximum likelihood estimator. For multimodal distributions, this means that an EM algorithm may co
Read more →
List of assembly software and tools

This is a list of assembly software and tools, including software used for assembly language programming, machine code generation, disassembly, debugging, binary analysis, reverse engineering, and instruction-set simulation. == Assemblers and machine-code generators == == Disassemblers and binary-analysis tools == == Debuggers with assembly-level features == == Educational IDEs, simulators and emulators == == Portable and intermediate assembly-like languages == == Assembly language families == Assembly language is not a single programming language, but a family of low-level languages associated with particular instruction set architectures and processor families. Examples include:
Read more →
Jpred

Jpred v.4 is the latest version of the JPred Protein Secondary Structure Prediction Server which provides predictions by the JNet algorithm, one of the most accurate methods for secondary structure prediction, that has existed since 1998 in different versions. In addition to protein secondary structure, JPred also makes predictions of solvent accessibility and coiled-coil regions. The JPred service runs up to 134 000 jobs per month and has carried out over 2 million predictions in total for users in 179 countries. == JPred 2 == The static HTML pages of JPred 2 are still available for reference. == JPred 3 == The JPred v3 followed on from previous versions of JPred developed and maintained by James Cuff and Jonathan Barber (see JPred References). This release added new functionality and fixed many bugs. The highlights are: New, friendlier user interface Retrained and optimised version of Jnet (v2) - mean secondary structure prediction accuracy of >81% Batch submission of jobs Better error checking of input sequences/alignments Predictions now (optionally) returned via e-mail Users may provide their own query names for each submission JPred now makes a prediction even when there are no PSI-BLAST hits to the query PS/PDF output now incorporates all the predictions == JPred 4 == The current version of JPred (v4) has the following improvements and updates incorporated: Retrained on the latest UniRef90 and SCOPe/ASTRAL version of Jnet (v2.3.1) - mean secondary structure prediction accuracy of >82%. Upgraded the Web Server to the latest technologies (Bootstrap framework, JavaScript) and updating the web pages – improving the design and usability through implementing responsive technologies. Added RESTful API and mass-submission and results retrieval scripts - resulting in peak throughput above 20,000 predictions per day. Added prediction jobs monitoring tools. Upgraded the results reporting – both, on the web-site, and through the optional email summary reports: improved batch submission, added results summary preview through Jalview results visualization summary in SVG and adding full multiple sequence alignments into the reports. Improved help-pages, incorporating tool-tips, and adding one-page step-by-step tutorials. Sequence residues are categorised or assigned to one of the secondary structure elements, such as alpha-helix, beta-sheet and coiled-coil. Jnet uses two neural networks for its prediction. The first network is fed with a window of 17 residues over each amino acid in the alignment plus a conservation number. It uses a hidden layer of nine nodes and has three output nodes, one for each secondary structure element. The second network is fed with a window of 19 residues (the result of first network) plus the conservation number. It has a hidden layer with nine nodes and has three output nodes.
Read more →
Randomized weighted majority algorithm

The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an algorithm in machine learning theory for aggregating expert predictions to a series of decision problems. It is a simple and effective method based on weighted voting which improves on the mistake bound of the deterministic weighted majority algorithm. In fact, in the limit, its prediction rate can be arbitrarily close to that of the best-predicting expert. == Example == Imagine that every morning before the stock market opens, we get a prediction from each of our "experts" about whether the stock market will go up or down. Our goal is to somehow combine this set of predictions into a single prediction that we then use to make a buy or sell decision for the day. The principal challenge is that we do not know which experts will give better or worse predictions. The RWMA gives us a way to do this combination such that our prediction record will be nearly as good as that of the single expert which, in hindsight, gave the most accurate predictions. == Motivation == In machine learning, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a deterministic meta-learning algorithm for aggregating expert predictions. In pseudocode, the WMA is as follows: initialize all experts to weight 1 for each round: add each expert's weight to the option they predicted predict the option with the largest weighted sum multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} Suppose there are n {\displaystyle n} experts and the best expert makes m {\displaystyle m} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) makes at most 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ n + m ) {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}n+m)} mistakes. This bound is highly problematic in the case of highly error-prone experts. Suppose, for example, the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time; that is, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds using n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} mistakes. As this is a known limitation of the weighted majority algorithm, various strategies have been explored in order to improve the dependence on m {\displaystyle m} . In particular, we can do better by introducing randomization. Drawing inspiration from the Multiplicative Weights Update Method algorithm, we will probabilistically make predictions based on how the experts have performed in the past. Similarly to the WMA, every time an expert makes a wrong prediction, we will decrement their weight. Mirroring the MWUM, we will then use the weights to make a probability distribution over the actions and draw our action from this distribution (instead of deterministically picking the majority vote as the WMA does). == Randomized weighted majority algorithm (RWMA) == The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an attempt to improve the dependence of the mistake bound of the WMA on m {\displaystyle m} . Instead of predicting based on majority vote, the weights, are used as probabilities for choosing the experts in each round and are updated over time (hence the name randomized weighted majority). Precisely, if w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} is the weight of expert i {\displaystyle i} , let W = ∑ i w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i}w_{i}} . We will follow expert i {\displaystyle i} with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} . This results in the following algorithm: initialize all experts to weight 1. for each round: add all experts' weights together to obtain the total weight W {\displaystyle W} choose expert i {\displaystyle i} randomly with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} predict as the chosen expert predicts multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by β {\displaystyle \beta } The goal is to bound the worst-case expected number of mistakes, assuming that the adversary has to select one of the answers as correct before we make our coin toss. This is a reasonable assumption in, for instance, the stock market example provided above: the variance of a stock price should not depend on the opinions of experts that influence private buy or sell decisions, so we can treat the price change as if it was decided before the experts gave their recommendations for the day. The randomized algorithm is better in the worst case than the deterministic algorithm (weighted majority algorithm): in the latter, the worst case was when the weights were split 50/50. But in the randomized version, since the weights are used as probabilities, there would still be a 50/50 chance of getting it right. In addition, generalizing to multiplying the weights of the incorrect experts by β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} instead of strictly 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} allows us to trade off between dependence on m {\displaystyle m} and log 2 ⁡ n {\displaystyle \log _{2}n} . This trade-off will be quantified in the analysis section. == Analysis == Let W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} denote the total weight of all experts at round t {\displaystyle t} . Also let F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} denote the fraction of weight placed on experts which predict the wrong answer at round t {\displaystyle t} . Finally, let N {\displaystyle N} be the total number of rounds in the process. By definition, F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} is the probability that the algorithm makes a mistake on round t {\displaystyle t} . It follows from the linearity of expectation that if M {\displaystyle M} denotes the total number of mistakes made during the entire process, E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} . After round t {\displaystyle t} , the total weight is decreased by ( 1 − β ) F t W t {\displaystyle \ (1-\beta )F_{t}W_{t}} , since all weights corresponding to a wrong answer are multiplied by β < 1 {\displaystyle \ \beta <1} . It then follows that W t + 1 = W t ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) {\displaystyle W_{t+1}=W_{t}(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})} . By telescoping, since W 1 = n {\displaystyle W_{1}=n} , it follows that the total weight after the process concludes is On the other hand, suppose that m {\displaystyle \ m} is the number of mistakes made by the best-performing expert. At the end, this expert has weight β m {\displaystyle \ \beta ^{m}} . It follows, then, that the total weight is at least this much; in other words, W ≥ β m {\displaystyle \ W\geq \beta ^{m}} . This inequality and the above result imply Taking the natural logarithm of both sides yields Now, the Taylor series of the natural logarithm is In particular, it follows that ln ⁡ ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) < − ( 1 − β ) F t {\displaystyle \ \ln(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})<-(1-\beta )F_{t}} . Thus, Recalling that E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} and rearranging, it follows that Now, as β → 1 {\displaystyle \beta \to 1} from below, the first constant tends to 1 {\displaystyle 1} ; however, the second constant tends to + ∞ {\displaystyle +\infty } . To quantify this tradeoff, define ε = 1 − β {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1-\beta } to be the penalty associated with getting a prediction wrong. Then, again applying the Taylor series of the natural logarithm, It then follows that the mistake bound, for small ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } , can be written in the form ( 1 + ϵ 2 + O ( ε 2 ) ) m + ϵ − 1 ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ \left(1+{\frac {\epsilon }{2}}+O(\varepsilon ^{2})\right)m+\epsilon ^{-1}\ln(n)} . In English, the less that we penalize experts for their mistakes, the more that additional experts will lead to initial mistakes but the closer we get to capturing the predictive accuracy of the best expert as time goes on. In particular, given a sufficiently low value of ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and enough rounds, the randomized weighted majority algorithm can get arbitrarily close to the correct prediction rate of the best expert. In particular, as long as m {\displaystyle m} is sufficiently large compared to ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ln(n)} (so that their ratio is sufficiently small), we can assign we can obtain an upper bound on the number of mistakes equal to This implies that the "regret bound" on the algorithm (that is, how much worse it performs than the best expert) is sublinear, at O ( m ln ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O({\sqrt {m\ln(n)}})} . == Revisiting the motivation == Recall that the motivation for the randomized weighted majority algorithm was given by an example where the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time. Precisely, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds, with n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, where the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes, the deterministic weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} . By the analysis above, it follows that minimizing the number of worst-case expected mistakes is equivalent to minimizing the fun
Read more →
Winner-take-all (computing)

Winner-take-all is a computational principle applied in computational models of neural networks by which neurons compete with each other for activation. In the classical form, only the neuron with the highest activation stays active while all other neurons shut down; however, other variations allow more than one neuron to be active, for example the soft winner take-all, by which a power function is applied to the neurons. == Neural networks == In the theory of artificial neural networks, winner-take-all networks are a case of competitive learning in recurrent neural networks. Output nodes in the network mutually inhibit each other, while simultaneously activating themselves through reflexive connections. After some time, only one node in the output layer will be active, namely the one corresponding to the strongest input. Thus the network uses nonlinear inhibition to pick out the largest of a set of inputs. Winner-take-all is a general computational primitive that can be implemented using different types of neural network models, including both continuous-time and spiking networks. Winner-take-all networks are commonly used in computational models of the brain, particularly for distributed decision-making or action selection in the cortex. Important examples include hierarchical models of vision, and models of selective attention and recognition. They are also common in artificial neural networks and neuromorphic analog VLSI circuits. It has been formally proven that the winner-take-all operation is computationally powerful compared to other nonlinear operations, such as thresholding. In many practical cases, there is not only one single neuron which becomes active but there are exactly k neurons which become active for a fixed number k. This principle is referred to as k-winners-take-all. === Example algorithm === Consider a single linear neuron, with inputs x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}} . Each input has weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , and the output of the neuron is ∑ i w i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i}w_{i}x_{i}} . In the Instar learning rule, on each input vector, the weight vectors are modified according to Δ w i = η ( x i − w i ) {\displaystyle \Delta w_{i}=\eta (x_{i}-w_{i})} where η {\displaystyle \eta } is the learning rate. This rule is unsupervised, since we need just the input vector, not a reference output. Now, consider multiple linear neurons y 1 , … , y m {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{m}} . The output of each satisfies y i = ∑ j w i j x j {\displaystyle y_{i}=\sum _{j}w_{ij}x_{j}} . In the winner-take-all algorithm, the weights are modified as follows. Given an input vector x {\displaystyle x} , each output is computed. The neuron with the largest output is selected, and the weights going into that neuron are modified according to the Instar learning rule. All other weights remain unchanged. The k-winners-take-all rule is similar, except that the Instar learning rule is applied to the weights going into the k neurons with the largest outputs. == Circuit example == A simple, but popular CMOS winner-take-all circuit is shown on the right. This circuit was originally proposed by Lazzaro et al. (1989) using MOS transistors biased to operate in the weak-inversion or subthreshold regime. In the particular case shown there are only two inputs (IIN,1 and IIN,2), but the circuit can be easily extended to multiple inputs in a straightforward way. It operates on continuous-time input signals (currents) in parallel, using only two transistors per input. In addition, the bias current IBIAS is set by a single global transistor that is common to all the inputs. The largest of the input currents sets the common potential VC. As a result, the corresponding output carries almost all the bias current, while the other outputs have currents that are close to zero. Thus, the circuit selects the larger of the two input currents, i.e., if IIN,1 > IIN,2, we get IOUT,1 = IBIAS and IOUT,2 = 0. Similarly, if IIN,2 > IIN,1, we get IOUT,1 = 0 and IOUT,2 = IBIAS. A SPICE-based DC simulation of the CMOS winner-take-all circuit in the two-input case is shown on the right. As shown in the top subplot, the input IIN,1 was fixed at 6nA, while IIN,2 was linearly increased from 0 to 10nA. The bottom subplot shows the two output currents. As expected, the output corresponding to the larger of the two inputs carries the entire bias current (10nA in this case), forcing the other output current nearly to zero. == Other uses == In stereo matching algorithms, following the taxonomy proposed by Scharstein and Szelliski, winner-take-all is a local method for disparity computation. Adopting a winner-take-all strategy, the disparity associated with the minimum or maximum cost value is selected at each pixel. It is axiomatic that in the electronic commerce market, early dominant players such as AOL or Yahoo! get most of the rewards. By 1998, one study found the top 5% of all web sites garnered more than 74% of all traffic. The winner-take-all hypothesis in economics suggests that once a technology or a firm gets ahead, it will do better and better over time, whereas lagging technology and firms will fall further behind. See First-mover advantage.
Read more →
Optical granulometry

Optical granulometry is the process of measuring the different grain sizes in a granular material, based on a photograph. Technology has been created to analyze a photograph and create statistics based on what the picture portrays. This information is vital in maintaining machinery in various trades worldwide. Mining companies can use optical granulometry to analyze inactive or moving rock to quantify the size of these fragments. Forestry companies can zero in on wood chip sizes without stopping the production process, and minimize sizing errors. With more photoanalysis technologies being produced, mining companies have shown an increased interest in these types of systems because of their ability to maintain efficiency throughout the mining process. Companies are saving millions of dollars annually because of this new technology, and are cutting back on maintenance costs on equipment. In order for optical granulometry to be completely successful, an accurate photo must be taken – under sufficient lighting, and using proper technology – to obtain quantified results. If these requirements are met, an image analysis system can be implemented. == The process == Software uses four basic steps in determining the average size of material: See the Wikipedia article on Photoanalysis to see how mining, forestry and agricultural companies are using this technology to improve quality control techniques. == Smartphone-based, segmentation-free estimation of grain size distribution == Recently, a methodology has emerged by which soil grain size distribution can be inferred from optical images acquired with commodity smartphones by training convolutional neural networks to predict parameters of the distribution curve directly from the image, without explicit image segmentation . In this approach, a standardized image of a soil surface is captured under controlled conditions, preprocessed to reduce device-specific variability, and passed to a regression model that outputs the parameters of a cumulative distribution function e.g., a two-parameter Weibull curve. The resulting distribution can be used to derive geotechnical descriptors and class boundaries.
Read more →
Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension

In Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, the Vapnik–Chervonenkis (VC) dimension is a measure of the size (capacity, complexity, expressive power, richness, or flexibility) of a class of sets. The notion can be extended to classes of binary functions. It is defined as the cardinality of the largest set of points that the function class can shatter—that is, for which all possible binary labelings can be realized by some function in the class. It was originally defined by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis. Informally, the capacity of a classification model is related to how complicated it can be. For example, consider the thresholding of a high-degree polynomial: if the polynomial evaluates above zero, that point is classified as positive, otherwise as negative. A high-degree polynomial can be wiggly, so that it can fit a given set of training points well. Such a polynomial has a high capacity. A much simpler alternative is to threshold a linear function. This function may not fit the training set well, because it has a low capacity. This notion of capacity is made rigorous below. == Definitions == === VC dimension of a set-family === Let C = { C } C ∈ C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}=\{C\}_{C\in {\mathcal {C}}}} be a family of sets (also called set family, collection of sets or set of sets) and X {\displaystyle X} a set. Their intersection is defined as the following set family: C ∩ X := { C ∩ X ∣ C ∈ C } . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}\cap X:=\{C\cap X\mid C\in {\mathcal {C}}\}.} Here typically X {\displaystyle X} and each C ∈ C {\displaystyle C\in {\mathcal {C}}} are subsets of a big "universe" of possibilities U {\displaystyle U} where intersection takes place. We say that a set X {\displaystyle X} is shattered by C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} if P ( X ) = C ∩ X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(X)={\mathcal {C}}\cap X} i.e. the set of intersections contains (hence is equal to) all the subsets of X {\displaystyle X} . For finite sets X {\displaystyle X} this is equivalent to | C ∩ X | = 2 | X | . {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {C}}\cap X|=2^{|X|}.} The VC dimension D {\displaystyle D} of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is the cardinality of the largest set that is shattered by C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} . If arbitrarily large sets can be shattered, the VC dimension of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is ∞ {\displaystyle \infty } . === VC dimension of a classification model === A binary classification model f {\displaystyle f} with some parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } is said to shatter a set of generally positioned data points ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n})} if, for every assignment of labels to those points, there exists a θ {\displaystyle \theta } such that the model f {\displaystyle f} makes no errors when evaluating that set of data points. The VC dimension of a model f {\displaystyle f} is the maximum number of points that can be arranged so that f {\displaystyle f} shatters them. More formally, it is the maximum cardinal D {\displaystyle D} such that there exists a generally positioned data point set of cardinality D {\displaystyle D} that can be shattered by f {\displaystyle f} . == Examples == f {\displaystyle f} is a constant classifier (with no parameters); Its VC dimension is 0 since it cannot shatter even a single point. In general, the VC dimension of a finite classification model, which can return at most 2 d {\displaystyle 2^{d}} different classifiers, is at most d {\displaystyle d} (this is an upper bound on the VC dimension; the Sauer–Shelah lemma gives a lower bound on the dimension). f {\displaystyle f} is a single-parametric threshold classifier on real numbers; i.e., for a certain threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } , the classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} returns 1 if the input number is larger than θ {\displaystyle \theta } and 0 otherwise. The VC dimension of f {\displaystyle f} is 1 because: (a) It can shatter a single point. For every point x {\displaystyle x} , a classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} labels it as 0 if θ > x {\displaystyle \theta >x} and labels it as 1 if θ < x {\displaystyle \theta x + 2 {\displaystyle \theta >x+2} , as (1,0) if θ ∈ [ x − 4 , x − 2 ) {\displaystyle \theta \in [x-4,x-2)} , as (1,1) if θ ∈ [ x − 2 , x ] {\displaystyle \theta \in [x-2,x]} , and as (0,1) if θ ∈ ( x , x + 2 ] {\displaystyle \theta \in (x,x+2]} . (b) It cannot shatter any set of three points. For every set of three numbers, if the smallest and the largest are labeled 1, then the middle one must also be labeled 1, so not all labelings are possible. f {\displaystyle f} is a straight line as a classification model on points in a two-dimensional plane (this is the model used by a perceptron). The line should separate positive data points from negative data points. There exist sets of 3 points that can indeed be shattered using this model (any 3 points that are not collinear can be shattered). However, no set of 4 points can be shattered: by Radon's theorem, any four points can be partitioned into two subsets with intersecting convex hulls, so it is not possible to separate one of these two subsets from the other. Thus, the VC dimension of this particular classifier is 3. It is important to remember that while one can choose any arrangement of points, the arrangement of those points cannot change when attempting to shatter for some label assignment. Note, only 3 of the 23 = 8 possible label assignments are shown for the three points. f {\displaystyle f} is a single-parametric sine classifier, i.e., for a certain parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } , the classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} returns 1 if the input number x {\displaystyle x} has sin ⁡ ( θ x ) > 0 {\displaystyle \sin(\theta x)>0} and 0 otherwise. The VC dimension of f {\displaystyle f} is infinite, since it can shatter any finite subset of the set { 2 − m ∣ m ∈ N } {\displaystyle \{2^{-m}\mid m\in \mathbb {N} \}} . == Uses == === In statistical learning theory === The VC dimension can predict a probabilistic upper bound on the test error of a classification model. Vapnik proved that the probability of the test error (i.e., risk with 0–1 loss function) distancing from an upper bound (on data that is drawn i.i.d. from the same distribution as the training set) is given by: Pr ( test error ⩽ training error + 1 N [ D ( log ⁡ ( 2 N D ) + 1 ) − log ⁡ ( η 4 ) ] ) = 1 − η , {\displaystyle \Pr \left({\text{test error}}\leqslant {\text{training error}}+{\sqrt {{\frac {1}{N}}\left[D\left(\log \left({\tfrac {2N}{D}}\right)+1\right)-\log \left({\tfrac {\eta }{4}}\right)\right]}}\,\right)=1-\eta ,} where D {\displaystyle D} is the VC dimension of the classification model, 0 < η ⩽ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\eta \leqslant 1} , and N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the training set (restriction: this formula is valid when D ≪ N {\displaystyle D\ll N} . When D {\displaystyle D} is larger, the test-error may be much higher than the training-error. This is due to overfitting). The VC dimension also appears in sample-complexity bounds. A space of binary functions with VC dimension D {\displaystyle D} can be learned with: N = Θ ( D + ln ⁡ 1 δ ε 2 ) {\displaystyle N=\Theta \left({\frac {D+\ln {1 \over \delta }}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}\right)} samples, where ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } is the learning error and δ {\displaystyle \delta } is the failure probability. Thus, the sample-complexity is a linear function of the VC dimension of the hypothesis space. === In computational geometry === The VC dimension is one of the critical parameters in the size of ε-nets, which determines the complexity of approximation algorithms based on them; range sets without finite VC dimension may not have finite ε-nets at all. == Bounds == The VC dimension of the dual set-family of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is strictly less than 2 vc ⁡ ( C ) + 1 {\displaystyle 2^{\operatorname {vc} ({\mathcal {C}})+1}} , and this is best possible. The VC dimension of a finite set-family C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is at most log 2 ⁡ | C | {\displaystyle \log _{2}|{\mathcal {C}}|} . This is because | C ∩ X | ≤ | X | {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {C}}\cap X|\leq |X|} by definition. Given a set-fa
Read more →
Optimal discriminant analysis and classification tree analysis

Optimal Discriminant Analysis (ODA) and the related classification tree analysis (CTA) are exact statistical methods that maximize predictive accuracy. For any specific sample and exploratory or confirmatory hypothesis, optimal discriminant analysis (ODA) identifies the statistical model that yields maximum predictive accuracy, assesses the exact Type I error rate, and evaluates potential cross-generalizability. Optimal discriminant analysis may be applied to > 0 dimensions, with the one-dimensional case being referred to as UniODA and the multidimensional case being referred to as MultiODA. Optimal discriminant analysis is an alternative to ANOVA (analysis of variance) and regression analysis.
Read more →