AI Content Detector Zero

AI Content Detector Zero — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Cooperative storage cloud

  A cooperative storage cloud is a decentralized model of networked online storage where data is stored on multiple computers (nodes), hosted by the participants cooperating in the cloud. For the cooperative scheme to be viable, the total storage contributed in aggregate must be at least equal to the amount of storage needed by end users. However, some nodes may contribute less storage and some may contribute more. There may be reward models to compensate the nodes contributing more. Unlike a traditional storage cloud, a cooperative does not directly employ dedicated servers for the actual storage of the data, thereby eliminating the need for a significant dedicated hardware investment. Each node in the cooperative runs specialized software which communicates with a centralized control and orchestration server, thereby allowing the node to both consume and contribute storage space to the cloud. The centralized control and orchestration server requires several orders of magnitude less resources (storage, computing power, and bandwidth) to operate, relative to the overall capacity of the cooperative. == Data security == Files hosted in the cloud are fragmented and encrypted before leaving the local machine. They are then distributed randomly using a load balancing and geo-distribution algorithm to other nodes in the cooperative. Users can add an additional layer of security and reduce storage space by compressing and encrypting files before they are copied to the cloud. == Data redundancy == In order to maintain data integrity and high availability across a relatively unreliable set of computers over a wide area network like the Internet, the source node will add some level of redundancy to each data block. This allows the system to recreate the entire block even if some nodes are temporarily unavailable (due to loss of network connectivity, the machine being powered off or a hardware failure). The most storage and bandwidth efficient forms of redundancy use erasure coding techniques like Reed–Solomon. A simple, less CPU intensive but more expensive form of redundancy is duplicate copies. == Flexible contribution == Due to bandwidth or hardware constraints some nodes may not be able to contribute as much space as they consume in the cloud. On the other hand, nodes with large storage space and limited or no bandwidth constraints may contribute more than they consume, thereby the cooperative can stay in balance.

  Read more →
• 

  Lattice Miner

  Lattice Miner is a formal concept analysis software tool for the construction, visualization and manipulation of concept lattices. It allows the generation of formal concepts and association rules as well as the transformation of formal contexts via apposition, subposition, reduction and object/attribute generalization, and the manipulation of concept lattices via approximation, projection and selection. Lattice Miner allows also the drawing of nested line diagrams. == Introduction == Formal concept analysis (FCA) is a branch of applied mathematics based on the formalization of concept and concept hierarchy and mainly used as a framework for conceptual clustering and rule mining. Over the last two decades, a collection of tools have emerged to help FCA users visualize and analyze concept lattices. They range from the earliest DOS-based implementations (e.g., ConImp and GLAD) to more recent implementations in Java like ToscanaJ, Galicia, ConExp and Coron. A main issue in the development of FCA tools is to visualize large concept lattices and provide efficient mechanisms to highlight patterns (e.g., concepts, associations) that could be relevant to the user. The initial objective of the FCA tool called Lattice Miner was to focus on visualization mechanisms for the representation of concept lattices, including nested line diagrams. Later on, many other interesting features were integrated into the tool. == Functional architecture of Lattice Miner == Lattice Miner is a Java-based platform whose functions are articulated around a core. The Lattice Miner core provides all low-level operations and structures for the representation and manipulation of contexts, lattices and association rules. Mainly, the core of Lattice Miner consists of three modules: context, concept and association rule modules. The user interface offers a context editor and concept lattice manipulator to assist the user in a set of tasks. The architecture of Lattice Miner is open and modular enough to allow the integration of new features and facilities in each one of its components. === Context module === The context module offers all the basic operations and structures to manipulate binary and valued contexts as well as context decomposition to produce nested line diagrams. Basic context operations include apposition, subposition, generalization, clarification, reduction as well as the complementary context computation. The module provides also the arrow relations (for context reduction and decomposition) [2]. The tool has an input LMB format and recognizes the binary format SLF found in Galicia and the format CEX produced by ConExp. === Concept module === The main function of the concept module is to generate the concepts of the current binary context and construct the corresponding lattice and nested structure (see Figures 2 and 3). It provides the user with basic operators such as projection, selection, and exact search as well as advanced features like pair approximation. Some known algorithms are included in this module such as Bordat’s procedure, Godin’s algorithm and NextClosure algorithm. The approximation feature implemented in Lattice Miner is based on the following idea: given a pair (X,Y) where X ⊆ G, and Y ⊆ M, is there a set of formal concepts (Ai,Bi) which are “close to” (X,Y)? To answer this question, The tool starts to identify the type of couple that the pair (X,Y) represents. It can be a formal concept, a protoconcept, a semiconcept or a preconcept. In the last case, the approximation is given by the interval [(X",X′),(Y′,Y")] and highlighted in the line diagram. === Association rule module === This module includes procedures for computing the (stem) Guigues–Duquenne base using NextClosure algorithm [3], as well as the generic and informative bases. Implications with negation can be obtained using the apposition of a context and its complementary. This module embeds also procedures for the computation of a non-redundant family C of implications and the closure of a set Y of attributes for the given implication set C. === User interface === The initial objective of Lattice Miner was to focus on lattice drawing and visualization either as a flat or nested structure by taking into account the cognitive process of human beings and known principles for lattice drawing (e.g., reducing the number of edge intersections, ensuring diagram symmetry). Some well-known visualization techniques were implemented such as focus & context and fisheye view. The basic idea behind focus & context visualization paradigm is to allow a viewer to see key (important) objects in full detail in the foreground (focus) while at the same time an overview of all the surrounding information (context) remains available in the background. Lattice Miner translates the focus & context paradigm into clear and blurred elements while the size of nodes and the intensity of their color were used to indicate their importance. Various forms of highlighting, labelling and animation are also provided. In order to better handle the display of large lattices, nested line diagrams are offered in the tool. Figure 3 shows the third level of the nested line diagram corresponding to the binary context of Figure 1 where three levels of nesting are defined. Each one of the inner nodes of this diagram represents a combination of attributes from the previous two (outer) levels. Real inner concepts (see the node on the left hand-side of the diagram) are identified by colored nodes while void elements are in grey color. Each node of levels 1 and 2 can be expanded to exhibit its internal line diagram. Both flat and nested diagrams can be saved as an image. Simple (flat) lattices can also be saved as an XML format file.

  Read more →
• 

  Synaptic transistor

  A synaptic transistor is an electrical device that can learn in ways similar to a neural synapse. It optimizes its own properties for the functions it has carried out in the past. The device mimics the behavior of the property of neurons called spike-timing-dependent plasticity, or STDP. == Structure == Its structure is similar to that of a field effect transistor, where an ionic liquid takes the place of the gate insulating layer between the gate electrode and the conducting channel. That channel is composed of samarium nickelate (SmNiO3, or SNO) rather than the field effect transistor's doped silicon. == Function == A synaptic transistor has a traditional immediate response whose amount of current that passes between the source and drain contacts varies with voltage applied to the gate electrode. It also produces a much slower learned response such that the conductivity of the SNO layer varies in response to the transistor's STDP history, essentially by shuttling oxygen ions between the SNO and the ionic liquid. The analog of strengthening a synapse is to increase the SNO's conductivity, which essentially increases gain. Similarly, weakening a synapse is analogous to decreasing the SNO's conductivity, lowering the gain. The input and output of the synaptic transistor are continuous analog values, rather than digital on-off signals. While the physical structure of the device has the potential to learn from history, it contains no way to bias the transistor to control the memory effect. An external supervisory circuit converts the time delay between input and output into a voltage applied to the ionic liquid that either drives ions into the SNO or removes them. A network of such devices can learn particular responses to "sensory inputs", with those responses being learned through experience rather than explicitly programmed.

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized blockmodeling

  In generalized blockmodeling, the blockmodeling is done by "the translation of an equivalence type into a set of permitted block types", which differs from the conventional blockmodeling, which is using the indirect approach. It's a special instance of the direct blockmodeling approach. Generalized blockmodeling was introduced in 1994 by Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj and Anuška Ferligoj. == Definition == Generalized blockmodeling approach is a direct one, "where the optimal partition(s) is (are) identified based on minimal values of a compatible criterion function defined by the difference between empirical blocks and corresponding ideal blocks". At the same time, the much broader set of block types is introduced (while in conventional blockmodeling only certain types are used). The conventional blockmodeling is inductive due to nonspecification of neither the clusters or the location of block types, while in generalized blockmodeling the blockmodel is specified with more detail than just the permition of certain block types (e.g., prespecification). Further, it's possible to define departures from the permitted (ideal) blocktype, using criterion function. Using local optimization procedure, firstly the initial clustering (with specified number of clusters is done, based on random creation. How the clusters are neighboring to each other, is based on two transformations: 1) a vertex is moved from one to another cluster or 2) a pair of vertices is interchanged between two different clusters. This process of transformation steps is repeated many times, until only the best fitting partitions (with the minimized value of the criterion function) are kept as blockmodels for the future exploration of the network. Different types of generalized blockmodeling are: generalized binary blockmodeling, generalized valued blockmodeling and generalized homogeneity blockmodeling. == Benefits == According to Patrick Doreian, the benefits of generalized blockmodeling, are as follows: usage of explicit criterion function, compatible with a given type of equivalence, results to in-built measure of fit, which is integral to the establishment of the blockmodels (in conventional blockmodeling, there is no compelling and coherent measures of fit); partitions, based on generalized blockmodeling, regularly outperform and never perform less well than the partitions, based on conventional approach; with generalized blockmodeling it's possible to specify new types of blockmodels; this potentially unlimited set of new block types also results in permittion of inclusion of substantively driven blockmodels; in generalized blockmodeling, the specification of the block types and the location of some of them in the blockmodel is possible; researcher can speficy which (pair of) vertices must be (not) clustered together; this approach also allows the imposition of penalties, resulting into identification of empirical null blocks without inconsistencies with a corresponding ideal null block. == Problems == According to Doreian, the problems of generalized blockmodeling, are as follows: unknown sensitivity to particular data features, examination of boundary problems, computationally burdensome, which results in a constraint regarding practical network size (generalized blockmodeling is thus primarily used to analyse smaller networks (below 100 units)), identifying structure from incomplete network information, most of generalized blockmodeling is based on binary networks, but there is also development in the field of valued networks, criterion function is minimized for a specified blockmodel, with results in issues of evaluating statistically, based on the structural data alone, problems regarding three dimensional network data, problems regarding the evolution of fundamental network structure. == Book == The book with the same title, Generalized blockmodeling, written by Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj and Anuška Ferligoj, was in 2007 awarded the Harrison White Outstanding Book Award by the Mathematical Sociology Section of American Sociological Association.

  Read more →
• 

  Ciscogate

  Ciscogate, also known as the Black Hat Bug, is the name given to a legal incident that occurred at the Black Hat Briefings security conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, on July 27, 2005. On the morning of the first day of the conference, July 26, 2005, some attendees noticed that 30 pages of text had been physically ripped out of the extensive conference presentation booklet the night before at the request of Cisco Systems and the CD-ROM with presentation slides was not included. It was determined the pages covered a talk to be given by Michael Lynn, a security researcher with Atlanta-based IBM Internet Security Systems (ISS). Instead of the pages with the details, attendees found a photographed copy of a notice from Black Hat saying "Due to some last minute changes beyond Black Hat's control, and at the request of the presenter, the included materials aren't up to the standards Black Hat tries to meet. Black Hat will be the first to apologize. We hope the vendors involved will follow suit." According to Lynn's lawyer, his employer had approved of the talk leading up to the conference but changed their minds two days before the scheduled talk, forbidding him from presenting. Lynn's original presentation was to cover a vulnerability in Cisco routers. The presentation was one of four scheduled to follow Jeff Moss' keynote address on the first day of the conference, titled "Cisco IOS Security Architecture". After being told by his employer that he could not present on the topic, Lynn chose an alternate topic. Cisco and ISS had offered to give new joint presentation but this was turned down by Black Hat because the original speaking slot was given to Lynn, not Cisco. Lynn's presentation began by covering security issues in services that allow users to make Voice over IP telephone calls. Shortly after beginning the presentation Lynn changed back to his original topic and began disclosing some technical details of the vulnerability he found in Cisco routers stating that he would rather resign from his job at ISS than keep the details private. == Lawsuit == Shortly after Lynn concluded his talk he met Jennifer Granick, who would soon become his lawyer. During their initial meeting Lynn told Granick that he expected to be sued. Later in the evening Lynn had heard that Cisco and ISS had filed a lawsuit and requested a temporary restraining order against Black Hat but not himself. A public relations representative from Black Hat told Granick that the lawsuit was against both Black Hat and Lynn and that the companies had scheduled an Ex parte hearing in San Francisco the next morning to request the restraining order. That night, Andrew Valentine, an attorney for ISS and Cisco called Lynn who directed them to Granick. During the conversation Valentine explained the claims and accusations against Lynn, which included three things: 1) ISS claimed copyright over the presentation that Lynn gave, 2) Cisco claimed copyright over the decompiled machine code obtained from the router which was included in the presentation, and 3) Cisco claimed the presentation contained trade secrets. These complaints were outlined in a civil complaint at the U.S. Northern District of California and filed against both Lynn and Black Hat. According to Granick, she and Valentine were able agree to an injunction to settle the case without court proceedings. This deal was almost called off due to an inadvertent mistake by Black Hat in which they had restored Lynn's presentation on their web server. Black Hat, Granick, and the plaintiff's lawyers were able to resolve this problem and the deal stood. One condition of the settlement required Lynn to provide an image of all computer data he used in his research to be provided to a third party for forensic analysis before erasing his research and any Cisco data from his systems. The settlement also stipulated that Lynn was prohibited from talking about the vulnerability in the future. == FBI Investigation == Shortly after lawyers for Lynn and ISS / Cisco filed settlement papers, FBI agents from the Las Vegas office arrived at the conference to begin asking questions. According to Granick, they were there at the request of the Atlanta FBI office and Lynn was not of interest. Granick asserted the Fifth and Sixth amendment rights on behalf of her client, Lynn. Granick asserted his rights for the Atlanta office and asked if an arrest warrant had been issued for Lynn. Over the next 24 hours Granick was not able to ascertain the status of a warrant but ultimately determined no warrant was issued. When the FBI was asked about the case by a journalist, spokesman Paul Bresson declined to discuss the case saying "Our policy is to not make any comment on anything that is ongoing. That's not to confirm that something is, because I really don't know". Granick would only confirm to journalists that the "investigation has to do with the presentation". == Response == === Attendees === Attendees of Black Hat Briefings, as well as many that also attended DEF CON, were not happy with vendors threatening legal action over vulnerability disclosure. The term "Ciscogate" was coined quickly by an unknown person, but some attendees were quick to create shirts to commemorate the incident. === Cisco === Mojgan Khalili, a senior manager for corporate PR at Cisco, issued a statement to the press saying "It is important to note that the information Mr. Lynn presented was not a disclosure of a new vulnerability or a flaw with Cisco IOS software. Mr. Lynn's research explores possible ways to expand exploitations of existing security vulnerabilities impacting routers." === ISS === Kim Duffy, managing director of ISS Australia, was asked about ISS's response to the incident. Duffy responded that it was "business as usual" as the company handled the incident "strictly by the book". He gave a brief statement to ZDNet UK saying "ISS has published rules for disclosure and that is what we stick to. We didn't care to publish [the disclosure] because we were not ready. We had not completed the research to our satisfaction so it was not ready to be disclosed". ISS spokesperson Roger Fortier confirmed that Lynn was no longer employed with the company and that ISS was still working with Cisco on the matter. He gave a statement to the Washington Post saying "ISS and Cisco have been working on this in the background and didn't feel at this time that the material was ready for publication. The decision was made on Monday to pull the presentation because we wanted to make sure the research was fully baked."

  Read more →
• 

  Exploratory blockmodeling

  Exploratory blockmodeling is an (inductive) approach (or a group of approaches) in blockmodeling regarding the specification of an ideal blockmodel. This approach, also known as hypotheses-generating, is the simplest approach, as it "merely involves the definition of the block types permitted as well as of the number of clusters." With this approach, researcher usually defines the best possible blockmodel, which then represent the base for the analysis of the whole network. This approach is usually based on: previous analyses and theoretical considerations, using stricker blockmodel and block types, where the structural equivalence is stricker than the regular equivalence and using smaller number of classes. The opposite approach is called a confirmatory blockmodeling.

  Read more →
• 

  Evolutionary algorithm

  Evolutionary algorithms (EA) reproduce essential elements of biological evolution in a computer algorithm in order to solve "difficult" problems, at least approximately, for which no exact or satisfactory solution methods are known. They are metaheuristics and population-based bio-inspired algorithms and evolutionary computation, which itself are part of the field of computational intelligence. The mechanisms of biological evolution that an EA mainly imitates are reproduction, mutation, recombination and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the quality of the solutions (see also loss function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape. Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolution (microevolutionary processes) and planning models based upon cellular processes. In most real applications of EAs, computational complexity is a prohibiting factor. In fact, this computational complexity is due to fitness function evaluation. Fitness approximation is one of the solutions to overcome this difficulty. However, seemingly simple EA can solve often complex problems; therefore, there may be no direct link between algorithm complexity and problem complexity. == Generic definition == The following is an example of a generic evolutionary algorithm: Randomly generate the initial population of individuals, the first generation. Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population. Check, if the goal is reached and the algorithm can be terminated. Select individuals as parents, preferably of higher fitness. Produce offspring with optional crossover (mimicking reproduction). Apply mutation operations on the offspring. Select individuals preferably of lower fitness for replacement with new individuals (mimicking natural selection). Return to 2 == Types == Similar techniques differ in genetic representation and other implementation details, and the nature of the particular applied problem. Genetic algorithm – This is the most popular type of EA. One seeks the solution of a problem in the form of strings of numbers (traditionally binary, although the best representations are usually those that reflect something about the problem being solved), by applying operators such as recombination and mutation (sometimes one, sometimes both). This type of EA is often used in optimization problems. Genetic programming – Here the solutions are in the form of computer programs, and their fitness is determined by their ability to solve a computational problem. There are many variants of Genetic Programming: Cartesian genetic programming Gene expression programming Grammatical evolution Linear genetic programming Multi expression programming Evolutionary programming – Similar to evolution strategy, but with a deterministic selection of all parents. Evolution strategy (ES) – Works with vectors of real numbers as representations of solutions, and typically uses self-adaptive mutation rates. The method is mainly used for numerical optimization, although there are also variants for combinatorial tasks. CMA-ES Natural evolution strategy Differential evolution – Based on vector differences and is therefore primarily suited for numerical optimization problems. Coevolutionary algorithm – Similar to genetic algorithms and evolution strategies, but the created solutions are compared on the basis of their outcomes from interactions with other solutions. Solutions can either compete or cooperate during the search process. Coevolutionary algorithms are often used in scenarios where the fitness landscape is dynamic, complex, or involves competitive interactions. Neuroevolution – Similar to genetic programming but the genomes represent artificial neural networks by describing structure and connection weights. The genome encoding can be direct or indirect. Learning classifier system – Here the solution is a set of classifiers (rules or conditions). A Michigan-LCS evolves at the level of individual classifiers whereas a Pittsburgh-LCS uses populations of classifier-sets. Initially, classifiers were only binary, but now include real, neural net, or S-expression types. Fitness is typically determined with either a strength or accuracy based reinforcement learning or supervised learning approach. Quality–Diversity algorithms – QD algorithms simultaneously aim for high-quality and diverse solutions. Unlike traditional optimization algorithms that solely focus on finding the best solution to a problem, QD algorithms explore a wide variety of solutions across a problem space and keep those that are not just high performing, but also diverse and unique. == Theoretical background == The following theoretical principles apply to all or almost all EAs. === No free lunch theorem === The no free lunch theorem of optimization states that all optimization strategies are equally effective when the set of all optimization problems is considered. Under the same condition, no evolutionary algorithm is fundamentally better than another. This can only be the case if the set of all problems is restricted. This is exactly what is inevitably done in practice. Therefore, to improve an EA, it must exploit problem knowledge in some form (e.g. by choosing a certain mutation strength or a problem-adapted coding). Thus, if two EAs are compared, this constraint is implied. In addition, an EA can use problem specific knowledge by, for example, not randomly generating the entire start population, but creating some individuals through heuristics or other procedures. Another possibility to tailor an EA to a given problem domain is to involve suitable heuristics, local search procedures or other problem-related procedures in the process of generating the offspring. This form of extension of an EA is also known as a memetic algorithm. Both extensions play a major role in practical applications, as they can speed up the search process and make it more robust. === Convergence === For EAs in which, in addition to the offspring, at least the best individual of the parent generation is used to form the subsequent generation (so-called elitist EAs), there is a general proof of convergence under the condition that an optimum exists. Without loss of generality, a maximum search is assumed for the proof: From the property of elitist offspring acceptance and the existence of the optimum it follows that per generation k {\displaystyle k} an improvement of the fitness F {\displaystyle F} of the respective best individual x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will occur with a probability P > 0 {\displaystyle P>0} . Thus: F ( x 1 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 2 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 3 ′ ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ F ( x k ′ ) ≤ ⋯ {\displaystyle F(x'_{1})\leq F(x'_{2})\leq F(x'_{3})\leq \cdots \leq F(x'_{k})\leq \cdots } I.e., the fitness values represent a monotonically non-decreasing sequence, which is bounded due to the existence of the optimum. From this follows the convergence of the sequence against the optimum. Since the proof makes no statement about the speed of convergence, it is of little help in practical applications of EAs. But it does justify the recommendation to use elitist EAs. However, when using the usual panmictic population model, elitist EAs tend to converge prematurely more than non-elitist ones. In a panmictic population model, mate selection (see step 4 of the generic definition) is such that every individual in the entire population is eligible as a mate. In non-panmictic populations, selection is suitably restricted, so that the dispersal speed of better individuals is reduced compared to panmictic ones. Thus, the general risk of premature convergence of elitist EAs can be significantly reduced by suitable population models that restrict mate selection. === Virtual alphabets === With the theory of virtual alphabets, David E. Goldberg showed in 1990 that by using a representation with real numbers, an EA that uses classical recombination operators (e.g. uniform or n-point crossover) cannot reach certain areas of the search space, in contrast to a coding with binary numbers. This results in the recommendation for EAs with real representation to use arithmetic operators for recombination (e.g. arithmetic mean or intermediate recombination). With suitable operators, real-valued representations are more effective than binary ones, contrary to earlier opinion. == Comparison to other concepts == === Biological processes === A possible limitation of many evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype–phenotype distinction. In nature, the fertilized egg cell undergoes a complex process known as embryogenesis to become a mature p

  Read more →
• 

  LamaH

  LamaH (Large-Sample Data for Hydrology and Environmental Sciences) is a cross-state initiative for unified data preparation and collection in the field of catchment hydrology. Hydrological datasets, for example, are an integral component for creating flood forecasting models. == Features == LamaH datasets always consist of a combination of meteorological time series (e.g., precipitation, temperature) and hydrologically relevant catchment attributes (e.g., elevation, slope, forest area, soil, bedrock) aggregated over the respective catchment as well as associated hydrological time series at the catchment outlet (discharge). By evaluating the large and heterogeneous sample (large-sample) of catchments, it is possible to gain insights into the hydrological cycle that would probably not be achievable with local and small-scale studies. The structure of the dataset allows an evaluation based on machine learning methods (deep learning). The accompanying paper explains not only the data preparation but also any limitations, uncertainties and possible applications. == Difference to CAMELS == The LamaH datasets are quite similar to the CAMELS datasets, but additionally feature: Further basin delineations (based on intermediate catchments) and attributes (e.g. flow distance and altitude difference between two topologically adjacent discharge gauges), enabling the setup of an interconnected hydrological network Attributes for classifying catchments and runoff gauges according to the degree and type of (anthropogenic) influence == Availability == LamaH datasets are available for the following regions: Central Europe (Austria and its hydrological upstream areas in Germany, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Slovakia, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Hungary) / 859 catchments CAMELS datasets are available for (ranked by publication date): Contiguous USA (exclusive Alaska and Hawaii) / 671 catchments Chile / 516 catchments Brazil / 897 catchments Great Britain / 671 catchments Australia / 222 catchments Both the CAMELS and LamaH datasets are licensed with Creative Commons and are therefore available barrier-free for the public.

  Read more →
• 

  Graph cuts in computer vision and artificial intelligence

  As applied in the field of computer vision, graph cut optimization can be employed to efficiently solve a wide variety of low-level computer vision problems (early vision), such as image smoothing, the stereo correspondence problem, image segmentation, object co-segmentation, numerous military applications (eg Automatic target recognition) and many other problems that can be formulated in terms of energy minimization (eg Climate Science and Environmental modelling). Graph cut techniques are now increasingly being used in combination with more general spatial Artificial intelligence techniques (eg to enforce structure in Large language model output to sharpen tumour boundaries and similarly for various Augmented reality, Self-driving car, Robotics, Google Maps applications etc). Many of these energy minimization problems can be approximated by solving a maximum flow problem in a graph (and thus, by the max-flow min-cut theorem, define a minimal cut of the graph). Under most formulations of such problems in computer vision, the minimum energy solution corresponds to the maximum a posteriori estimate of a solution. Although many computer vision algorithms involve cutting a graph (e.g. normalized cuts), the term "graph cuts" is applied specifically to those models which employ a max-flow/min-cut optimization (other graph cutting algorithms may be considered as graph partitioning algorithms). "Binary" problems (such as denoising a binary image) can be solved exactly using this approach; problems where pixels can be labeled with more than two different labels (such as stereo correspondence, or denoising of a grayscale image) cannot be solved exactly, but solutions produced are usually near the global optimum. == History == The foundational theory of graph cuts in computer vision was first developed by Margaret Greig, Bruce Porteous and Allan Seheult (GPS) of Durham University in a now legendary discussion contribution to Julian Besag's 1986 paper and a more detailed follow on paper in 1989. In the Bayesian statistical context of smoothing noisy images, using a Markov random field as the image prior distribution, they showed with a mathematically beautiful proof how the maximum a posteriori estimate of a binary image can be obtained exactly by maximizing the flow through an associated image network, or graph, involving the introduction of a source and sink and Log-likelihood ratios. The problem was shown to be efficiently solvable exactly, an unexpected result as the problem was believed to be computationally intractable (NP hard). GPS also addressed the computational cost of the max-flow algorithm on large graphs, a significant concern at the time. They proposed a partitioning algorithm (see Section 4 of GPS) involving the recursive amalgamation of non-overlapping blocks, or tiles, which gave a 12X increase in speed. This approach recursively solved and amalgamated independent sub-graphs until the whole graph was solved. While contemporaries like Geman and Geman had advocated Parallel computing in the context of Simulated annealing, the GPS blocking strategy offered a deterministic structure amenable to parallelisation and anticipated modern artificial intelligence design across multiple GPUs. However, until recently, this aspect of the paper was largely ignored and subsequent research focused on Serial computer global search trees, such as the Boykov-Kolmogorov algorithm. Although the general k {\displaystyle k} -colour problem is NP hard for k > 2 , {\displaystyle k>2,} the GPS approach has turned out to have very wide applicability in general computer vision problems. This was first demonstrated by Boykov, Veksler and Zabih who, in a seminal paper published more than 10 years after the original GPS paper, and in other important works, lit the blue touch paper for the general adoption of graph cut techniques in computer vision. They showed that, for general problems, the GPS approach can be applied iteratively to sequences of binary problems, using their now ubiquitous alpha-expansion algorithm, yielding near optimal solutions. Prior to these results, approximate local optimisation techniques such as simulated annealing (as proposed by the Geman brothers) or iterated conditional modes (a type of greedy algorithm suggested by Julian Besag) were used to solve such image smoothing problems. Building on these advancements, GPS graph cut optimization was subsequently adapted for interactive image segmentation, most notably through the "GrabCut" algorithm introduced by Carsten Rother, Vladimir Kolmogorov, and Andrew Blake of Microsoft Research, Cambridge. GrabCut extended earlier interactive graph cut methods by replacing monochrome image histograms with Gaussian mixture models to estimate colour distributions, and by employing an iterative GPS energy minimisation scheme. This approach significantly simplified user interaction, requiring only a rough bounding box around the target object rather than detailed user-drawn strokes, and it quickly became a standard tool in both academic research and commercial image editing software. The GPS paper connected and bridged profound ideas from Mathematical statistics (Bayes' theorem, Markov random field), Physics (Ising model), Optimisation (Energy function) and Computer science (Network flow problem) and led the move away from approximate local and slow optimisation approaches (eg simulated annealing) to more powerful exact, or near exact, faster global optimisation techniques. It is now recognised as seminal as it was well ahead of its time and, in particular, was published years before the computing power revolution of Moore's law and GPUs. Significantly, GPS was published in a mathematical statistics (rather than a computer vision) journal, and this led to it being overlooked by the computer vision community for many years. It is unofficially known as "The Velvet Underground" paper of computer vision (ie although very few computer vision people read the paper [bought the record], those that did, most importantly Boykov, Veksler and Zabih, started new and important research [formed a band]). This is confirmed by GPS' very large amplification ratio (2nd order citations/first order citations), estimated at well in excess of 100. Despite the foundational nature of the GPS work, formal recognition from the computer vision community has predominantly gone to the researchers who followed to extend and popularise the graph cut method. For example, Boykov, Veksler and Zabih deservedly received a Helmholtz Prize from the ICCV in 2011. This prize recognises ICCV papers from 10 or more years earlier that have had a significant impact on computer vision research. In 2011, Couprie et al. proposed a general image segmentation framework, called the "Power Watershed", that minimized a real-valued indicator function from [0,1] over a graph, constrained by user seeds (or unary terms) set to 0 or 1, in which the minimization of the indicator function over the graph is optimized with respect to an exponent p {\displaystyle p} . When p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} , the Power Watershed is optimized by graph cuts, when p = 0 {\displaystyle p=0} the Power Watershed is optimized by shortest paths, p = 2 {\displaystyle p=2} is optimized by the random walker algorithm and p = ∞ {\displaystyle p=\infty } is optimized by the watershed algorithm. In this way, the Power Watershed may be viewed as a generalization of graph cuts that provides a straightforward connection with other energy optimization segmentation/clustering algorithms. == Binary segmentation of images == === Notation === Image: x ∈ { R , G , B } N {\displaystyle x\in \{R,G,B\}^{N}} Output: Segmentation (also called opacity) S ∈ R N {\displaystyle S\in R^{N}} (soft segmentation). For hard segmentation S ∈ { 0 for background , 1 for foreground/object to be detected } N {\displaystyle S\in \{0{\text{ for background}},1{\text{ for foreground/object to be detected}}\}^{N}} Energy function: E ( x , S , C , λ ) {\displaystyle E(x,S,C,\lambda )} where C is the color parameter and λ is the coherence parameter. E ( x , S , C , λ ) = E c o l o r + E c o h e r e n c e {\displaystyle E(x,S,C,\lambda )=E_{\rm {color}}+E_{\rm {coherence}}} Optimization: The segmentation can be estimated as a global minimum over S: arg ⁡ min S E ( x , S , C , λ ) {\displaystyle {\arg \min }_{S}E(x,S,C,\lambda )} === Existing methods === Standard Graph cuts: optimize energy function over the segmentation (unknown S value). Iterated Graph cuts: First step optimizes over the color parameters using K-means. Second step performs the usual graph cuts algorithm. These 2 steps are repeated recursively until convergence Dynamic graph cuts:Allows to re-run the algorithm much faster after modifying the problem (e.g. after new seeds have been added by a user). === Energy function === Pr ( x ∣ S ) = K − E {\displaystyle \Pr(x\mid S)=K^{-E}} where the energy E {\displaystyle E} is composed of two different mod

  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 →
• 

  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 →
• 

  LPBoost

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

  Read more →
• 

  ImageNet

  The ImageNet project is a large visual database designed for use in visual object recognition software research. More than 14 million images have been hand-annotated by the project to indicate what objects are pictured and in at least one million of the images, bounding boxes are also provided. ImageNet contains more than 20,000 categories, with a typical category, such as "balloon" or "strawberry", consisting of several hundred images. The database of annotations of third-party image URLs is freely available directly from ImageNet, though the actual images are not owned by ImageNet. Since 2010, the ImageNet project runs an annual software contest, the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC), where software programs compete to correctly classify and detect objects and scenes. The challenge uses a "trimmed" list of one thousand non-overlapping classes. == History == AI researcher Fei-Fei Li began working on the idea for ImageNet in 2006. At a time when most AI research focused on models and algorithms, Li wanted to expand and improve the data available to train AI algorithms. In 2007, Li met with Princeton professor Christiane Fellbaum, one of the creators of WordNet, to discuss the project. As a result of this meeting, Li went on to build ImageNet starting from the roughly 22,000 nouns of WordNet and using many of its features. She was also inspired by a 1987 estimate that the average person recognizes roughly 30,000 different kinds of objects. As an assistant professor at Princeton, Li assembled a team of researchers to work on the ImageNet project. They used Amazon Mechanical Turk to help with the classification of images. Labeling started in July 2008 and ended in April 2010. It took 49K workers from 167 countries filtering and labeling over 160M candidate images. They had enough budget to have each of the 14 million images labelled three times. The original plan called for 10,000 images per category, for 40,000 categories at 400 million images, each verified 3 times. They found that humans can classify at most 2 images/sec. At this rate, it was estimated to take 19 human-years of labor (without rest). They presented their database for the first time as a poster at the 2009 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) in Florida, titled "ImageNet: A Preview of a Large-scale Hierarchical Dataset". The poster was reused at Vision Sciences Society 2009. In 2009, Alex Berg suggested adding object localization as a task. Li approached PASCAL Visual Object Classes contest in 2009 for a collaboration. It resulted in the subsequent ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge starting in 2010, which has 1000 classes and object localization, as compared to PASCAL VOC which had just 20 classes and 19,737 images (in 2010). === Significance for deep learning === On 30 September 2012, a convolutional neural network (CNN) called AlexNet achieved a top-5 error of 15.3% in the ImageNet 2012 Challenge, more than 10.8 percentage points lower than that of the runner-up. Using convolutional neural networks was feasible due to the use of graphics processing units (GPUs) during training, an essential ingredient of the deep learning revolution. According to The Economist, "Suddenly people started to pay attention, not just within the AI community but across the technology industry as a whole." In 2015, AlexNet was outperformed by Microsoft's very deep CNN with over 100 layers, which won the ImageNet 2015 contest, having 3.57% error on the test set. Andrej Karpathy estimated in 2014 that with concentrated effort, he could reach 5.1% error rate, and ~10 people from his lab reached ~12-13% with less effort. It was estimated that with maximal effort, a human could reach 2.4%. == Dataset == ImageNet crowdsources its annotation process. Image-level annotations indicate the presence or absence of an object class in an image, such as "there are tigers in this image" or "there are no tigers in this image". Object-level annotations provide a bounding box around the (visible part of the) indicated object. ImageNet uses a variant of the broad WordNet schema to categorize objects, augmented with 120 categories of dog breeds to showcase fine-grained classification. In 2012, ImageNet was the world's largest academic user of Mechanical Turk. The average worker identified 50 images per minute. The original plan of the full ImageNet would have roughly 50M clean, diverse and full resolution images spread over approximately 50K synsets. This was not achieved. The summary statistics given on April 30, 2010: Total number of non-empty synsets: 21841 Total number of images: 14,197,122 Number of images with bounding box annotations: 1,034,908 Number of synsets with SIFT features: 1000 Number of images with SIFT features: 1.2 million === Categories === The categories of ImageNet were filtered from the WordNet concepts. Each concept, since it can contain multiple synonyms (for example, "kitty" and "young cat"), so each concept is called a "synonym set" or "synset". There were more than 100,000 synsets in WordNet 3.0, majority of them are nouns (80,000+). The ImageNet dataset filtered these to 21,841 synsets that are countable nouns that can be visually illustrated. Each synset in WordNet 3.0 has a "WordNet ID" (wnid), which is a concatenation of part of speech and an "offset" (a unique identifying number). Every wnid starts with "n" because ImageNet only includes nouns. For example, the wnid of synset "dog, domestic dog, Canis familiaris" is "n02084071". The categories in ImageNet fall into 9 levels, from level 1 (such as "mammal") to level 9 (such as "German shepherd"). === Image format === The images were scraped from online image search (Google, Picsearch, MSN, Yahoo, Flickr, etc) using synonyms in multiple languages. For example: German shepherd, German police dog, German shepherd dog, Alsatian, ovejero alemán, pastore tedesco, 德国牧羊犬. ImageNet consists of images in RGB format with varying resolutions. For example, in ImageNet 2012, "fish" category, the resolution ranges from 4288 x 2848 to 75 x 56. In machine learning, these are typically preprocessed into a standard constant resolution, and whitened, before further processing by neural networks. For example, in PyTorch, ImageNet images are by default normalized by dividing the pixel values so that they fall between 0 and 1, then subtracting by [0.485, 0.456, 0.406], then dividing by [0.229, 0.224, 0.225]. These are the mean and standard deviations for ImageNet, so this whitens the input data. === Labels and annotations === Each image is labelled with exactly one wnid. Dense SIFT features (raw SIFT descriptors, quantized codewords, and coordinates of each descriptor/codeword) for ImageNet-1K were available for download, designed for bag of visual words. The bounding boxes of objects were available for about 3000 popular synsets with on average 150 images in each synset. Furthermore, some images have attributes. They released 25 attributes for ~400 popular synsets: Color: black, blue, brown, gray, green, orange, pink, red, violet, white, yellow Pattern: spotted, striped Shape: long, round, rectangular, square Texture: furry, smooth, rough, shiny, metallic, vegetation, wooden, wet === ImageNet-21K === The full original dataset is referred to as ImageNet-21K. ImageNet-21k contains 14,197,122 images divided into 21,841 classes. Some papers round this up and name it ImageNet-22k. The full ImageNet-21k was released in Fall of 2011, as fall11_whole.tar. There is no official train-validation-test split for ImageNet-21k. Some classes contain only 1-10 samples, while others contain thousands. === ImageNet-1K === There are various subsets of the ImageNet dataset used in various context, sometimes referred to as "versions". One of the most highly used subsets of ImageNet is the "ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) 2012–2017 image classification and localization dataset". This is also referred to in the research literature as ImageNet-1K or ILSVRC2017, reflecting the original ILSVRC challenge that involved 1,000 classes. ImageNet-1K contains 1,281,167 training images, 50,000 validation images and 100,000 test images. Each category in ImageNet-1K is a leaf category, meaning that there are no child nodes below it, unlike ImageNet-21K. For example, in ImageNet-21K, there are some images categorized as simply "mammal", whereas in ImageNet-1K, there are only images categorized as things like "German shepherd", since there are no child-words below "German shepherd". === Later developments === In the WordNet they built ImageNet on, there were 2832 synsets in the "person" subtree. During 2018--2020 period, they removed the download of the ImageNet-21k as they went through extensive filtering in these person synsets. Out of these 2832 synsets, 1593 were deemed "potentially offensive". Out of the remaining 1239, 1081 were deemed not really "visual". The result was that only 158 syn

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-entropy

  In information theory, the cross-entropy between two probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} , over the same underlying set of events, measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set when the coding scheme used for the set is optimized for an estimated probability distribution q {\displaystyle q} , rather than the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} . == Definition == The cross-entropy of the distribution q {\displaystyle q} relative to a distribution p {\displaystyle p} over a given set is defined as follows: H ( p , q ) = − E p ⁡ [ log ⁡ q ] , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=-\operatorname {E} _{p}[\log q],} where E p ⁡ [ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{p}[\cdot ]} is the expected value operator with respect to the distribution p {\displaystyle p} . The definition may be formulated using the Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , divergence of p {\displaystyle p} from q {\displaystyle q} (also known as the relative entropy of p {\displaystyle p} with respect to q {\displaystyle q} ). H ( p , q ) = H ( p ) + D K L ( p ∥ q ) , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=H(p)+D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q),} where H ( p ) {\displaystyle H(p)} is the entropy of p {\displaystyle p} . For discrete probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with the same support X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , this means The situation for continuous distributions is analogous. We have to assume that p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are absolutely continuous with respect to some reference measure r {\displaystyle r} (usually r {\displaystyle r} is a Lebesgue measure on a Borel σ-algebra). Let P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} be probability density functions of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with respect to r {\displaystyle r} . Then − ∫ X P ( x ) log ⁡ Q ( x ) d x = E p ⁡ [ − log ⁡ Q ] , {\displaystyle -\int _{\mathcal {X}}P(x)\,\log Q(x)\,\mathrm {d} x=\operatorname {E} _{p}[-\log Q],} and therefore NB: The notation H ( p , q ) {\displaystyle H(p,q)} is also used for a different concept, the joint entropy of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} . == Motivation == In information theory, the Kraft–McMillan theorem establishes that any directly decodable coding scheme for coding a message to identify one value x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of a set of possibilities { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} can be seen as representing an implicit probability distribution q ( x i ) = ( 1 2 ) ℓ i {\displaystyle q(x_{i})=\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)^{\ell _{i}}} over { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} , where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is the length of the code for x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} in bits. Therefore, cross-entropy can be interpreted as the expected message-length per datum when a wrong distribution q {\displaystyle q} is assumed while the data actually follows a distribution p {\displaystyle p} . That is why the expectation is taken over the true probability distribution p {\displaystyle p} and not q . {\displaystyle q.} Indeed the expected message-length under the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} is E p ⁡ [ ℓ ] = − E p ⁡ [ ln ⁡ q ( x ) ln ⁡ ( 2 ) ] = − E p ⁡ [ log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) ] = − ∑ x i p ( x i ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) = − ∑ x p ( x ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) = H ( p , q ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {E} _{p}[\ell ]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[{\frac {\ln {q(x)}}{\ln(2)}}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[\log _{2}{q(x)}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x_{i}}p(x_{i})\,\log _{2}q(x_{i})\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x}p(x)\,\log _{2}q(x)=H(p,q).\end{aligned}}} == Estimation == There are many situations where cross-entropy needs to be measured but the distribution of p {\displaystyle p} is unknown. An example is language modeling, where a model is created based on a training set T {\displaystyle T} , and then its cross-entropy is measured on a test set to assess how accurate the model is in predicting the test data. In this example, p {\displaystyle p} is the true distribution of words in any corpus, and q {\displaystyle q} is the distribution of words as predicted by the model. Since the true distribution is unknown, cross-entropy cannot be directly calculated. In these cases, an estimate of cross-entropy is calculated using the following formula: H ( T , q ) = − ∑ i = 1 N 1 N log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) {\displaystyle H(T,q)=-\sum _{i=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}\log _{2}q(x_{i})} where N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the test set, and q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(x)} is the probability of event x {\displaystyle x} estimated from the training set. In other words, q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} is the probability estimate of the model that the i-th word of the text is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . The sum is averaged over the N {\displaystyle N} words of the test. This is a Monte Carlo estimate of the true cross-entropy, where the test set is treated as samples from p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} . == Relation to maximum likelihood == The cross entropy arises in classification problems when introducing a logarithm in the guise of the log-likelihood function. This section concerns the estimation of the probabilities of different discrete outcomes. To this end, denote a parametrized family of distributions by q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } subject to the optimization effort. Consider a given finite sequence of N {\displaystyle N} values x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from a training set, obtained from conditionally independent sampling. The likelihood assigned to any considered parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the model is then given by the product over all probabilities q θ ( X = x i ) {\displaystyle q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})} . Repeated occurrences are possible, leading to equal factors in the product. If the count of occurrences of the value equal to x {\displaystyle x} is denoted by # x {\displaystyle \#x} , then the frequency of that value equals # x / N {\displaystyle \#x/N} . If p ( X = x ) {\displaystyle p(X=x)} is the underlying probability distribution, for large N {\displaystyle N} we expect p ( X = x ) ≈ # x / N {\displaystyle p(X=x)\approx \#x/N} , by the law of large numbers. Writing our likelihood function as the product of observations from the distribution q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} : L ( θ ; x ) = ∏ i q θ ( X = x i ) = ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) # x ≈ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) = exp ⁡ log ⁡ [ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) ] = exp ⁡ ( ∑ x N ⋅ p ( X = x ) log ⁡ q θ ( X = x ) ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })&=\prod _{i}q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})=\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{\#x}\\&\approx \prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}=\exp \log \left[\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}\right]\\&=\exp \left(\sum _{x}N\cdot p(X=x)\log q_{\theta }(X=x)^{}\right),\end{aligned}}} where we have used the calculation rules for the logarithm in the final line. Notice how the exponent contains a − H ( p , q θ ) {\displaystyle -H(p,q_{\theta })} term. Taking the logarithm of both sides gives: log ⁡ L ( θ ; x ) = − N ⋅ H ( p , q θ ) . {\displaystyle \log {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })=-N\cdot H(p,q_{\theta }).} Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by this final step. Similarly, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by the factor of N {\displaystyle N} . So we observe that the likelihood maximization amounts to minimization of the cross-entropy. == Cross-entropy minimization == Cross-entropy minimization is frequently used in optimization and rare-event probability estimation. When comparing a distribution q {\displaystyle q} against a fixed reference distribution p {\displaystyle p} , cross-entropy and KL divergence are identical up to an additive constant (since p {\displaystyle p} is fixed): According to the Gibbs' inequality, both take on their minimal values when p = q {\displaystyle p=q} , which is 0 {\displaystyle 0} for KL divergence, and H ( p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (p)} for cross-entropy. In the engineering literature, the principle of minimizing KL divergence (Kullback's "Principle of Minimum Discrimination Information") is often called the Principle of Minimum Cross-Entropy (MCE), or Minxent. However, as discussed in the article Kullback–Leibler divergence, sometimes the distribution q {\displaystyle q} is the fixed prior reference distribution, and the distribution p {\displaystyle p} is optimized to be as close to q {\displaystyle q} as possible, subject to some constraint. In this case the two minimizations are not equivalent. This has led to some ambiguity in the literature, with some authors attempting to resolve the inconsistency by restating cross-entropy to be D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , rather than H (

  Read more →
• 

  BrownBoost

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

  Read more →