AI Data Center Zoning

AI Data Center Zoning — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Human-in-the-loop

  Human-in-the-loop (HITL) is used in multiple contexts. It can be defined as a model requiring human interaction. HITL is associated with modeling and simulation (M&S) in the live, virtual, and constructive taxonomy. HITL, along with the related human-on-the-loop, are also used in relation to lethal autonomous weapons. Further, HITL is used in the context of machine learning.It is also used in conversational AI to manage complex interactions that require human empathy. == Machine learning == In machine learning, HITL is used in the sense of humans aiding the computer in making the correct decisions in building a model. HITL improves machine learning over random sampling by selecting the most critical data needed to refine the model. == Simulation == In simulation, HITL models may conform to human factors requirements as in the case of a mockup. In this type of simulation, a human is always part of the simulation and consequently influences the outcome in such a way that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce exactly. HITL also readily allows for the identification of problems and requirements that may not be easily identified by other means of simulation. HITL is often referred to as an interactive simulation, which is a special kind of physical simulation in which physical simulations include human operators, such as in a flight or a driving simulator. === Benefits === Human-in-the-loop allows the user to change the outcome of an event or process. The immersion effectively contributes to a positive transfer of acquired skills into the real world. This can be demonstrated by trainees utilizing flight simulators in preparation to become pilots. HITL also allows for the acquisition of knowledge regarding how a new process may affect a particular event. Utilizing HITL allows participants to interact with realistic models and attempt to perform as they would in an actual scenario. HITL simulations bring to the surface issues that would not otherwise be apparent until after a new process has been deployed. A real-world example of HITL simulation as an evaluation tool is its usage by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow air traffic controllers to test new automation procedures by directing the activities of simulated air traffic while monitoring the effect of the newly implemented procedures. As with most processes, there is always the possibility of human error, which can only be reproduced using HITL simulation. Although much can be done to automate systems, humans typically still need to take the information provided by a system to determine the next course of action based on their judgment and experience. Intelligent systems can only go so far in certain circumstances to automate a process; only humans in the simulation can accurately judge the final design. Tabletop simulation may be useful in the very early stages of project development for the purpose of collecting data to set broad parameters, but the important decisions require human-in-the-loop simulation. HITL reflects scenarios where human input remains essential despite advances in automation. === Within the virtual simulation taxonomy === Virtual simulations inject HITL in a central role by exercising motor control skills (e.g. flying an airplane), decision making skills (e.g. committing fire control resources to action), or communication skills (e.g. as members of a C4I team). === Examples === Flight simulators Driving simulators Marine simulators Video games Supply chain management simulators Digital puppetry === Misconceptions === Although human-in-the-loop simulation can include a computer simulation in the form of a synthetic environment, computer simulation is not necessarily a form of human-in-the-loop simulation, and is often considered as human-out-of-the loop simulation. In this particular case, a computer model’s behavior is modified according to a set of initial parameters. The results of the model differ from the results stemming from a true human-in-the-loop simulation because the results can easily be replicated time and time again, by simply providing identical parameters. == Weapons == === Taxonomy === Three classifications of the degree of human control of autonomous weapon systems were laid out by Bonnie Docherty in a 2012 Human Rights Watch report. human-in-the-loop: a human must instigate the action of the weapon (in other words not fully autonomous) human-on-the-loop: a human may abort an action human-out-of-the-loop: no human action is involved === Positive human action === In discussions of autonomous weapons and nuclear command and control, the phrase positive human action has been used alongside "human-in-the-loop" to emphasize that a human operator must affirmatively authorize the use of force. Descriptions of the United States Navy's Aegis Combat System have used the phrase in characterizing a requirement for affirmative human action to initiate live firing. A survey of autonomous weapons systems described the Aegis "Auto SM" mode as one in which "the system fully develops the engagement process however engagement requires positive human action". The phrase entered United States federal law in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, which stipulates that artificial intelligence systems not compromise "the principle of requiring positive human actions in execution of decisions by the President with respect to the employment of nuclear weapons".

  Read more →
• 

  International Conference on Computer Vision

  The International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) is a research conference sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) held every other year. It is considered to be one of the top conferences in computer vision, alongside CVPR and ECCV, and it is held on years in which ECCV is not. The conference is usually spread over four to five days. Typically, experts in the focus areas give tutorial talks on the first day, then the technical sessions (and poster sessions in parallel) follow. Recent conferences have also had an increasing number of focused workshops and a commercial exhibition. == Awards == === Azriel Rosenfeld Lifetime Achievement Award === The Azriel Rosenfeld Award, or Azriel Rosenfeld Lifetime Achievement Award, recognizes researchers who have made significant contributions to the field of computer vision over their careers. It is named in memory of computer scientist and mathematician Azriel Rosenfeld. The following people have received this award: === Helmholtz Prize === The ICCV Helmholtz Prize, known as the Test of Time Award before 2013, is awarded every other year at the ICCV, recognizing ICCV papers from ten or more years earlier that had a significant impact on computer vision research. Winners are selected by the IEEE Computer Society's Technical Committee on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. The award is named after the 19th century physician and physicist Hermann von Helmholtz, and the ICCV's award is not related to the various Helmholtz Prizes in physics, or the Hermann von Helmholtz Prize in neuroscience. === Marr Prize === The ICCV best-paper award is the Marr Prize, named after British neuroscientist David Marr. === Mark Everingham Prize === The Mark Everingham Prize is an award given yearly by the Technical Committee on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence of the IEEE Computer Society at the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision or the European Conference on Computer Vision to commemorate the late Mark Everingham, "one of the rising stars of computer vision", and to encourage others to follow in his footsteps by acting to further progress in the computer vision community as a whole. The prize is given to a researcher, or a team of researchers, who have made a selfless contribution of significant benefit to other members of the computer vision community. The Mark Everingham Prize for Rigorous Evaluation was an award given in 2012 at the British Machine Vision Conference. === PAMI Distinguished Researcher Award === The PAMI Distinguished Researcher Award (until 2013 called Significant Researcher Award) is awarded to candidates whose research projects have significantly contributed to the progress of computer vision. Awards are made based on major research contributions, as well as the role of those contributions in influencing and inspiring other research. Candidates are nominated by the community. The following people have received this award: == Conference list == The conference is usually held in the Spring in various international locations.

  Read more →
• 

  Stress majorization

  Stress majorization is an optimization strategy used in multidimensional scaling (MDS) where, for a set of n {\displaystyle n} m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional data items, a configuration X {\displaystyle X} of n {\displaystyle n} points in r {\displaystyle r} ( ≪ m ) {\displaystyle (\ll m)} -dimensional space is sought that minimizes the so-called stress function σ ( X ) {\displaystyle \sigma (X)} . Usually r {\displaystyle r} is 2 {\displaystyle 2} or 3 {\displaystyle 3} , i.e. the ( n × r ) {\displaystyle (n\times r)} matrix X {\displaystyle X} lists points in 2 − {\displaystyle 2-} or 3 − {\displaystyle 3-} dimensional Euclidean space so that the result may be visualised (i.e. an MDS plot). The function σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a cost or loss function that measures the squared differences between ideal ( m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional) distances and actual distances in r-dimensional space. It is defined as: σ ( X ) = ∑ i < j ≤ n w i j ( d i j ( X ) − δ i j ) 2 {\displaystyle \sigma (X)=\sum _{i Read more →

• 

  Loss function

  In mathematical optimization and decision theory, a loss function or cost function (sometimes also called an error function) is a function that maps an event or values of one or more variables onto a real number intuitively representing some "cost" associated with the event. An optimization problem seeks to minimize a loss function. An objective function is either a loss function or its opposite (in specific domains, variously called a reward function, a profit function, a utility function, a fitness function, etc.), in which case it is to be maximized. The loss function could include terms from several levels of the hierarchy. In statistics, typically a loss function is used for parameter estimation, and the event in question is some function of the difference between estimated and true values for an instance of data. The concept, as old as Laplace, was reintroduced in statistics by Abraham Wald in the middle of the 20th century. In the context of economics, for example, this is usually economic cost or regret. In classification, it is the penalty for an incorrect classification of an example. In actuarial science, it is used in an insurance context to model benefits paid over premiums, particularly since the works of Harald Cramér in the 1920s. In optimal control, the loss is the penalty for failing to achieve a desired value. In financial risk management, the function is mapped to a monetary loss. == Examples == === Regret === Leonard J. Savage argued that using non-Bayesian methods such as minimax, the loss function should be based on the idea of regret, i.e., the loss associated with a decision should be the difference between the consequences of the best decision that could have been made under circumstances will be known and the decision that was in fact taken before they were known. === Quadratic loss function === The use of a quadratic loss function is common, for example when using least squares techniques. It is often more mathematically tractable than other loss functions because of the properties of variances, as well as being symmetric: an error above the target causes the same loss as the same magnitude of error below the target. If the target is t {\displaystyle t} , then a quadratic loss function is λ ( x ) = C ( t − x ) 2 {\displaystyle \lambda (x)=C(t-x)^{2}\;} for some constant C {\displaystyle C} ; the value of the constant makes no difference to a decision, and can be ignored by setting it equal to 1. This is also known as the squared error loss (SEL). Many common statistics, including t-tests, regression models, design of experiments, and much else, use least squares methods applied using linear regression theory, which is based on the quadratic loss function. The quadratic loss function is also used in linear-quadratic optimal control problems. In these problems, even in the absence of uncertainty, it may not be possible to achieve the desired values of all target variables. Often loss is expressed as a quadratic form in the deviations of the variables of interest from their desired values; this approach is tractable because it results in linear first-order conditions. In the context of stochastic control, the expected value of the quadratic form is used. The quadratic loss assigns more importance to outliers than to the true data due to its square nature, so alternatives like the Huber, log-cosh and SMAE losses are used when the data has many large outliers. === 0-1 loss function === In statistics and decision theory, a frequently used loss function is the 0-1 loss function L ( y ^ , y ) = { 0 if y = y ^ 1 if y ≠ y ^ {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)={\begin{cases}0&{\text{if }}y={\hat {y}}\\1&{\text{if }}y\neq {\hat {y}}\end{cases}}} In information theory, this loss function is known as Hamming distortion. == Constructing loss and objective functions == In many applications, objective functions, including loss functions as a particular case, are determined by the problem formulation. In other situations, the decision maker’s preference must be elicited and represented by a scalar-valued function (called also utility function) in a form suitable for optimization — the problem that Ragnar Frisch has highlighted in his Nobel Prize lecture. The existing methods for constructing objective functions are collected in the proceedings of two dedicated conferences. In particular, Andranik Tangian showed that the most usable objective functions — quadratic and additive — are determined by a few indifference points. He used this property in the models for constructing these objective functions from either ordinal or cardinal data that were elicited through computer-assisted interviews with decision makers. Among other things, he constructed objective functions to optimally distribute budgets for 16 Westfalian universities and the European subsidies for equalizing unemployment rates among 271 German regions. == Expected loss == In some contexts, the value of the loss function itself is a random quantity because it depends on the outcome of a random variable X {\displaystyle X} . === Statistics === Both frequentist and Bayesian statistical theory involve making a decision based on the expected value of the loss function; however, this quantity is defined differently under the two paradigms. ==== Frequentist expected loss ==== We first define the expected loss in the frequentist context. It is obtained by taking the expected value with respect to the probability distribution, P θ {\displaystyle P_{\theta }} , of the observed data, X {\displaystyle X} . This is also referred to as the risk function of the decision rule δ {\displaystyle \delta } and the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } . Here the decision rule depends on the outcome of X {\displaystyle X} . The risk function is given by: R ( θ , δ ) = E θ ⁡ L ( θ , δ ( X ) ) = ∫ X L ( θ , δ ( x ) ) d P θ ( x ) . {\displaystyle R(\theta ,\delta )=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }L{\big (}\theta ,\delta (X){\big )}=\int _{X}L{\big (}\theta ,\delta (x){\big )}\,\mathrm {d} P_{\theta }(x).} Here, θ {\displaystyle \theta } is a fixed but possibly unknown state of nature, X {\displaystyle X} is a vector of observations stochastically drawn from a population, E θ {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{\theta }} is the expectation over all population values of X {\displaystyle X} , d P θ {\displaystyle \mathrm {d} P_{\theta }} is a probability measure over the event space of X {\displaystyle X} (parametrized by θ {\displaystyle \theta } ) and the integral is evaluated over the entire support of X {\displaystyle X} . ==== Bayes Risk ==== In a Bayesian approach, the expectation is calculated using the prior distribution π ∗ {\displaystyle \pi ^{}} of the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } : ρ ( π ∗ , a ) = ∫ Θ ∫ X L ( θ , a ( x ) ) d P ( x | θ ) d π ∗ ( θ ) = ∫ X ∫ Θ L ( θ , a ( x ) ) d π ∗ ( θ | x ) d M ( x ) {\displaystyle \rho (\pi ^{},a)=\int _{\Theta }\int _{\mathbf {X}}L(\theta ,a({\mathbf {x}}))\,\mathrm {d} P({\mathbf {x}}\vert \theta )\,\mathrm {d} \pi ^{}(\theta )=\int _{\mathbf {X}}\int _{\Theta }L(\theta ,a({\mathbf {x}}))\,\mathrm {d} \pi ^{}(\theta \vert {\mathbf {x}})\,\mathrm {d} M({\mathbf {x}})} where M ( x ) {\displaystyle M(\mathbf {x} )} is known as the predictive likelihood wherein θ {\displaystyle \theta } has been "integrated out," π ∗ ( θ | x ) {\displaystyle \pi ^{}(\theta |\mathbf {x} )} is the posterior distribution, and the order of integration has been changed. One then should choose the action a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{}} which minimises this expected loss, which is referred to as Bayes Risk. In the latter equation, the integrand inside d x {\displaystyle \mathrm {d} x} is known as the Posterior Risk, and minimising it with respect to decision a {\displaystyle a} also minimizes the overall Bayes Risk. This optimal decision, a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{}} is known as the Bayes (decision) Rule - it minimises the average loss over all possible states of nature θ {\displaystyle \theta } , over all possible (probability-weighted) data outcomes. One advantage of the Bayesian approach is to that one need only choose the optimal action under the actual observed data to obtain a uniformly optimal one, whereas choosing the actual frequentist optimal decision rule as a function of all possible observations, is a much more difficult problem. Of equal importance though, the Bayes Rule reflects consideration of loss outcomes under different states of nature, θ {\displaystyle \theta } . ==== Examples in statistics ==== For a scalar parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } , a decision function whose output θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is an estimate of θ {\displaystyle \theta } , and a quadratic loss function (squared error loss) L ( θ , θ ^ ) = ( θ − θ ^ ) 2 , {\displaystyle L(\theta ,{\hat {\theta }})=(\theta -{\hat {\theta }})^{2},} the risk function becomes the mean squared error of the estimate, R ( θ , θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ − θ ^ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle R(\theta ,{\hat {\thet

  Read more →
• 

  Winner-take-all in action selection

  Winner-take-all is a computer science concept that has been widely applied in behavior-based robotics as a method of action selection for intelligent agents. Winner-take-all systems work by connecting modules (task-designated areas) in such a way that when one action is performed it stops all other actions from being performed, so only one action is occurring at a time. The name comes from the idea that the "winner" action takes all of the motor system's power. == History == In the 1980s and 1990s, many roboticists and cognitive scientists were attempting to find speedier and more efficient alternatives to the traditional world modeling method of action selection. In 1982, Jerome A. Feldman and D.H. Ballard published the "Connectionist Models and Their Properties", referencing and explaining winner-take-all as a method of action selection. Feldman's architecture functioned on the simple rule that in a network of interconnected action modules, each module will set its own output to zero if it reads a higher input than its own in any other module. In 1986, Rodney Brooks introduced behavior-based artificial intelligence. Winner-take-all architectures for action selection soon became a common feature of behavior-based robots, because selection occurred at the level of the action modules (bottom-up) rather than at a separate cognitive level (top-down), producing a tight coupling of stimulus and reaction. == Types of winner-take-all architectures == === Hierarchy === In the hierarchical architecture, actions or behaviors are programmed in a high-to-low priority list, with inhibitory connections between all the action modules. The agent performs low-priority behaviors until a higher-priority behavior is stimulated, at which point the higher behavior inhibits all other behaviors and takes over the motor system completely. Prioritized behaviors are usually key to the immediate survival of the agent, while behaviors of lower priority are less time-sensitive. For example, "run away from predator" would be ranked above "sleep." While this architecture allows for clear programming of goals, many roboticists have moved away from the hierarchy because of its inflexibility. === Heterarchy and fully distributed === In the heterarchy and fully distributed architecture, each behavior has a set of pre-conditions to be met before it can be performed, and a set of post-conditions that will be true after the action has been performed. These pre- and post-conditions determine the order in which behaviors must be performed and are used to causally connect action modules. This enables each module to receive input from other modules as well as from the sensors, so modules can recruit each other. For example, if the agent's goal were to reduce thirst, the behavior "drink" would require the pre-condition of having water available, so the module would activate the module in charge of "find water". The activations organize the behaviors into a sequence, even though only one action is performed at a time. The distribution of larger behaviors across modules makes this system flexible and robust to noise. Some critics of this model hold that any existing set of division rules for the predecessor and conflictor connections between modules produce sub-par action selection. In addition, the feedback loop used in the model can in some circumstances lead to improper action selection. === Arbiter and centrally coordinated === In the arbiter and centrally coordinated architecture, the action modules are not connected to each other but to a central arbiter. When behaviors are triggered, they begin "voting" by sending signals to the arbiter, and the behavior with the highest number of votes is selected. In these systems, bias is created through the "voting weight", or how often a module is allowed to vote. Some arbiter systems take a different spin on this type of winner-take-all by using a "compromise" feature in the arbiter. Each module is able to vote for or against each smaller action in a set of actions, and the arbiter selects the action with the most votes, meaning that it benefits the most behavior modules. This can be seen as violating the general rule against creating representations of the world in behavior-based AI, established by Brooks. By performing command fusion, the system is creating a larger composite pool of knowledge than is obtained from the sensors alone, forming a composite inner representation of the environment. Defenders of these systems argue that forbidding world-modeling puts unnecessary constraints on behavior-based robotics, and that agents benefits from forming representations and can still remain reactive.

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic learning theory

  Algorithmic learning theory is a mathematical framework for analyzing machine learning problems and algorithms. Synonyms include formal learning theory and algorithmic inductive inference. Algorithmic learning theory is different from statistical learning theory in that it does not make use of statistical assumptions and analysis. Both algorithmic and statistical learning theory are concerned with machine learning and can thus be viewed as branches of computational learning theory. == Distinguishing characteristics == Unlike statistical learning theory and most statistical theory in general, algorithmic learning theory does not assume that data are random samples, that is, that data points are independent of each other. This makes the theory suitable for domains where observations are (relatively) noise-free but not random, such as language learning and automated scientific discovery. The fundamental concept of algorithmic learning theory is learning in the limit: as the number of data points increases, a learning algorithm should converge to a correct hypothesis on every possible data sequence consistent with the problem space. This is a non-probabilistic version of statistical consistency, which also requires convergence to a correct model in the limit, but allows a learner to fail on data sequences with probability measure 0 . Algorithmic learning theory investigates the learning power of Turing machines. Other frameworks consider a much more restricted class of learning algorithms than Turing machines, for example, learners that compute hypotheses more quickly, for instance in polynomial time. An example of such a framework is probably approximately correct learning . == Learning in the limit == The concept was introduced in E. Mark Gold's seminal paper "Language identification in the limit". The objective of language identification is for a machine running one program to be capable of developing another program by which any given sentence can be tested to determine whether it is "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". The language being learned need not be English or any other natural language - in fact the definition of "grammatical" can be absolutely anything known to the tester. In Gold's learning model, the tester gives the learner an example sentence at each step, and the learner responds with a hypothesis, which is a suggested program to determine grammatical correctness. It is required of the tester that every possible sentence (grammatical or not) appears in the list eventually, but no particular order is required. It is required of the learner that at each step the hypothesis must be correct for all the sentences so far. A particular learner is said to be able to "learn a language in the limit" if there is a certain number of steps beyond which its hypothesis no longer changes. At this point it has indeed learned the language, because every possible sentence appears somewhere in the sequence of inputs (past or future), and the hypothesis is correct for all inputs (past or future), so the hypothesis is correct for every sentence. The learner is not required to be able to tell when it has reached a correct hypothesis, all that is required is that it be true. Gold showed that any language which is defined by a Turing machine program can be learned in the limit by another Turing-complete machine using enumeration. This is done by the learner testing all possible Turing machine programs in turn until one is found which is correct so far - this forms the hypothesis for the current step. Eventually, the correct program will be reached, after which the hypothesis will never change again (but note that the learner does not know that it won't need to change). Gold also showed that if the learner is given only positive examples (that is, only grammatical sentences appear in the input, not ungrammatical sentences), then the language can only be guaranteed to be learned in the limit if there are only a finite number of possible sentences in the language (this is possible if, for example, sentences are known to be of limited length). Language identification in the limit is a highly abstract model. It does not allow for limits of runtime or computer memory which can occur in practice, and the enumeration method may fail if there are errors in the input. However the framework is very powerful, because if these strict conditions are maintained, it allows the learning of any program known to be computable. This is because a Turing machine program can be written to mimic any program in any conventional programming language. See Church-Turing thesis. == Other identification criteria == Learning theorists have investigated other learning criteria, such as the following. Efficiency: minimizing the number of data points required before convergence to a correct hypothesis. Mind Changes: minimizing the number of hypothesis changes that occur before convergence. Mind change bounds are closely related to mistake bounds that are studied in statistical learning theory. Kevin Kelly has suggested that minimizing mind changes is closely related to choosing maximally simple hypotheses in the sense of Occam’s Razor. == Annual conference == Since 1990, there is an International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), called Workshop in its first years (1990–1997). Between 1992 and 2016, proceedings were published in the LNCS series. Starting from 2017, they are published by the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. The 34th conference will be held in Singapore in Feb 2023. The topics of the conference cover all of theoretical machine learning, including statistical and computational learning theory, online learning, active learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning.

  Read more →
• 

  Shattered set

  A class of sets is said to shatter another set if it is possible to "pick out" any element of that set using intersection. The concept of shattered sets plays an important role in Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, also known as VC-theory. Shattering and VC-theory are used in the study of empirical processes as well as in statistical computational learning theory. == Definition == Suppose A is a set and C is a class of sets. The class C shatters the set A if for each subset a of A, there is some element c of C such that a = c ∩ A . {\displaystyle a=c\cap A.} Equivalently, C shatters A when their intersection is equal to A's power set: P(A) = { c ∩ A | c ∈ C }. We employ the letter C to refer to a "class" or "collection" of sets, as in a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class (VC-class). The set A is often assumed to be finite because, in empirical processes, we are interested in the shattering of finite sets of data points. == Example == We will show that the class of all discs in the plane (two-dimensional space) does not shatter every set of four points on the unit circle, yet the class of all convex sets in the plane does shatter every finite set of points on the unit circle. Let A be a set of four points on the unit circle and let C be the class of all discs. To test where C shatters A, we attempt to draw a disc around every subset of points in A. First, we draw a disc around the subsets of each isolated point. Next, we try to draw a disc around every subset of point pairs. This turns out to be doable for adjacent points, but impossible for points on opposite sides of the circle. Any attempt to include those points on the opposite side will necessarily include other points not in that pair. Hence, any pair of opposite points cannot be isolated out of A using intersections with class C and so C does not shatter A. As visualized below: Because there is some subset which can not be isolated by any disc in C, we conclude then that A is not shattered by C. And, with a bit of thought, we can prove that no set of four points is shattered by this C. However, if we redefine C to be the class of all elliptical discs, we find that we can still isolate all the subsets from above, as well as the points that were formerly problematic. Thus, this specific set of 4 points is shattered by the class of elliptical discs. Visualized below: With a bit of thought, we could generalize that any set of finite points on a unit circle could be shattered by the class of all convex sets (visualize connecting the dots). == Shatter coefficient == To quantify the richness of a collection C of sets, we use the concept of shattering coefficients (also known as the growth function). For a collection C of sets s ⊂ Ω {\displaystyle s\subset \Omega } , Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } being any space, often a sample space, we define the nth shattering coefficient of C as S C ( n ) = max ∀ x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω card ⁡ { { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } ∩ s , s ∈ C } {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=\max _{\forall x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega }\operatorname {card} \{\,\{\,x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\}\cap s,s\in C\}} where card {\displaystyle \operatorname {card} } denotes the cardinality of the set and x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega } is any set of n points,. S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is the largest number of subsets of any set A of n points that can be formed by intersecting A with the sets in collection C. For example, if set A contains 3 points, its power set, P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} , contains 2 3 = 8 {\displaystyle 2^{3}=8} elements. If C shatters A, its shattering coefficient(3) would be 8 and S C ( 2 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)} would be 2 2 = 4 {\displaystyle 2^{2}=4} . However, if one of those sets in P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} cannot be obtained through intersections in c, then S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would only be 7. If none of those sets can be obtained, S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would be 0. Additionally, if S C ( 2 ) = 3 {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)=3} , for example, then there is an element in the set of all 2-point sets from A that cannot be obtained from intersections with C. It follows from this that S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would also be less than 8 (i.e. C would not shatter A) because we have already located a "missing" set in the smaller power set of 2-point sets. This example illustrates some properties of S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} : S C ( n ) ≤ 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)\leq 2^{n}} for all n because { s ∩ A | s ∈ C } ⊆ P ( A ) {\displaystyle \{s\cap A|s\in C\}\subseteq P(A)} for any A ⊆ Ω {\displaystyle A\subseteq \Omega } . If S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} , that means there is a set of cardinality n, which can be shattered by C. If S C ( N ) < 2 N {\displaystyle S_{C}(N)<2^{N}} for some N > 1 {\displaystyle N>1} then S C ( n ) < 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)<2^{n}} for all n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} . The third property means that if C cannot shatter any set of cardinality N then it can not shatter sets of larger cardinalities. == Vapnik–Chervonenkis class == If A cannot be shattered by C, there will be a smallest value of n that makes the shatter coefficient(n) less than 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} because as n gets larger, there are more sets that could be missed. Alternatively, there is also a largest value of n for which the S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is still 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} , because as n gets smaller, there are fewer sets that could be omitted. The extreme of this is S C ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(0)} (the shattering coefficient of the empty set), which must always be 2 0 = 1 {\displaystyle 2^{0}=1} . These statements lends themselves to defining the VC dimension of a class C as: V C ( C ) = min n { n : S C ( n ) < 2 n } {\displaystyle VC(C)={\underset {n}{\min }}\{n:S_{C}(n)<2^{n}\}\,} or, alternatively, as V C 0 ( C ) = max n { n : S C ( n ) = 2 n } . {\displaystyle VC_{0}(C)={\underset {n}{\max }}\{n:S_{C}(n)=2^{n}\}.\,} Note that V C ( C ) = V C 0 ( C ) + 1. {\displaystyle VC(C)=VC_{0}(C)+1.} . The VC dimension is usually defined as V C 0 {\displaystyle VC_{0}} , the largest cardinality of points chosen that will still shatter A (i.e. n such that S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} ). Altneratively, if for any n there is a set of cardinality n which can be shattered by C, then S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} for all n and the VC dimension of this class C is infinite. A class with finite VC dimension is called a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class or VC class. A class C is uniformly Glivenko–Cantelli if and only if it is a VC class.

  Read more →
• 

  Teaching dimension

  In computational learning theory, the teaching dimension of a concept class C is defined to be max c ∈ C { w C ( c ) } {\displaystyle \max _{c\in C}\{w_{C}(c)\}} , where w C ( c ) {\displaystyle {w_{C}(c)}} is the minimum size of a witness set for c in C. Intuitively, this measures the number of instances that are needed to identify a concept in the class, using supervised learning with examples provided by a helpful teacher who is trying to convey the concept as succinctly as possible. This definition was formulated in 1995 by Sally Goldman and Michael Kearns, based on earlier work by Goldman, Ron Rivest, and Robert Schapire. The teaching dimension of a finite concept class can be used to give a lower and an upper bound on the membership query cost of the concept class. In Stasys Jukna's book "Extremal Combinatorics", a lower bound is given for the teaching dimension in general: Let C be a concept class over a finite domain X. If the size of C is greater than 2 k ( | X | k ) , {\displaystyle 2^{k}{|X| \choose k},} then the teaching dimension of C is greater than k. However, there are more specific teaching models that make assumptions about teacher or learner, and can get lower values for the teaching dimension. For instance, several models are the classical teaching (CT) model, the optimal teacher (OT) model, recursive teaching (RT), preference-based teaching (PBT), and non-clashing teaching (NCT).

  Read more →
• 

  Autognostics

  Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware. It is considered one of the major components of Autonomic Networking. == Introduction == One of the most important characteristics of today's Internet that has contributed to its success is its basic design principle: a simple and transparent core with intelligence at the edges (the so-called "end-to-end principle"). Based on this principle, the network carries data without knowing the characteristics of that data (e.g., voice, video, etc.) - only the end-points have application-specific knowledge. If something goes wrong with the data, only the edge may be able to recognize that since it knows about the application and what the expected behavior is. The core has no information about what should happen with that data - it only forwards packets. Although an effective and beneficial attribute, this design principle has also led to many of today's problems, limitations, and frustrations. Currently, it is almost impossible for most end-users to know why certain network-based applications do not work well and what they need to do to make it better. Also, network operators who interact with the core in low-level terms such as router configuration have problems expressing their high-level goals into low-level actions. In high-level terms, this may be summarized as a weak coupling between the network and application layers of the overall system. As a consequence of the Internet end-to-end principle, the network performance experienced by a particular application is difficult to attribute based on the behavior of the individual elements. At any given moment, the measure of performance between any two points is typically unknown and applications must operate blindly. As a further consequence, changes to the configuration of given element, or changes in the end-to-end path, cannot easily be validated. Optimization and provisioning cannot then be automated except against only the simplest design specifications. There is an increasing interest in Autonomic Networking research, and a strong conviction that an evolution from the current networking status quo is necessary. Although to date there have not been any practical implementations demonstrating the benefits of an effective autonomic networking paradigm, there seems to be a consensus as to the characteristics which such implementations would need to demonstrate. These specifically include continuous monitoring, identifying, diagnosing and fixing problems based on high-level policies and objectives. Autognostics, as a major part of the autonomic networking concept, intends to bring networks to a new level of awareness and eliminate the lack of visibility which currently exists in today's networks. == Definition == Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware, in part and as a whole, and dynamically adapt to the applications running on them by autonomously monitoring, identifying, diagnosing, resolving issues, subsequently verifying that any remediation was successful, and reporting the impact with respect to the application's use (i.e., providing visibility into the changes to networks and their effects). Although similar to the concept of network awareness, i.e., the capability of network devices and applications to be aware of network characteristics (see References section below), it is noteworthy that autognostics takes that concept one step further. The main difference is the auto part of autognostics, which entails that network devices are self-aware of network characteristics, and have the capability to adapt themselves as a result of continuous monitoring and diagnostics. == Path to autognostics == Autognostics, or in other words deep self-knowledge, can be best described as the ability of a network to know itself and the applications that run on it. This knowledge is used to autonomously adapt to dynamic network and application conditions such as utilization, capacity, quality of service/application/user experience, etc. In order to achieve autognosis, networks need a means to: Continuously monitor/test the network for application-specific performance Analyze the monitoring/test data to detect problems (e.g., performance degradation) Diagnose, identify and localize sources of degradation Automatically take actions to resolve problems via remediation/provisioning Verify the problems have been resolved (potentially rolling back changes if ineffective) Subsequently, continue to monitor/test for performance

  Read more →
• 

  KXEN Inc.

  KXEN was an American software company which existed from 1998 to 2013 when it was acquired by SAP AG. == History == KXEN was founded in June 1998 by Roger Haddad and Michel Bera. It was based in San Francisco, California with offices in Paris and London. On September 10, 2013, SAP AG announced plans to acquire KXEN. On October 1, 2013, a letter to KXEN customers announced the acquisition closed. KXEN primarily marketed predictive analytics software. == Predictive analytics == InfiniteInsight is a predictive modeling suite developed by KXEN that assists analytic professionals, and business executives to extract information from data. Among other functions, InfiniteInsight is used for variable importance, classification, regression, segmentation, time series, product recommendation, as described and expressed by the Java Data Mining interface, and for social network analysis. InfiniteInsight allows prediction of a behavior or a value, the forecast of a time series or the understanding of a group of individuals with similar behavior. Advanced functions include behavioral modeling, exporting the model code into different target environments or building predictive models on top of SAS or SPSS data files. Competitors are SAS Enterprise Miner, IBM SPSS Modeler, and Statistica. Open source predictive tools like the R package or Weka are also competitors, since they provide similar features free of charge.

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic block model

  The stochastic block model is a generative model for random graphs. This model tends to produce graphs containing communities, subsets of nodes characterized by being connected with one another with particular edge densities. For example, edges may be more common within communities than between communities. Its mathematical formulation was first introduced in 1983 in the field of social network analysis by Paul W. Holland et al. The stochastic block model is important in statistics, machine learning, and network science, where it serves as a useful benchmark for the task of recovering community structure in graph data. == Definition == The stochastic block model takes the following parameters: The number n {\displaystyle n} of vertices; a partition of the vertex set { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \{1,\ldots ,n\}} into disjoint subsets C 1 , … , C r {\displaystyle C_{1},\ldots ,C_{r}} , called communities; a symmetric r × r {\displaystyle r\times r} matrix P {\displaystyle P} of edge probabilities. The edge set is then sampled at random as follows: any two vertices u ∈ C i {\displaystyle u\in C_{i}} and v ∈ C j {\displaystyle v\in C_{j}} are connected by an edge with probability P i j {\displaystyle P_{ij}} . An example problem is: given a graph with n {\displaystyle n} vertices, where the edges are sampled as described, recover the groups C 1 , … , C r {\displaystyle C_{1},\ldots ,C_{r}} . == Special cases == If the probability matrix is a constant, in the sense that P i j = p {\displaystyle P_{ij}=p} for all i , j {\displaystyle i,j} , then the result is the Erdős–Rényi model G ( n , p ) {\displaystyle G(n,p)} . This case is degenerate—the partition into communities becomes irrelevant—but it illustrates a close relationship to the Erdős–Rényi model. The planted partition model is the special case that the values of the probability matrix P {\displaystyle P} are a constant p {\displaystyle p} on the diagonal and another constant q {\displaystyle q} off the diagonal. Thus two vertices within the same community share an edge with probability p {\displaystyle p} , while two vertices in different communities share an edge with probability q {\displaystyle q} . Sometimes it is this restricted model that is called the stochastic block model. The case where p > q {\displaystyle p>q} is called an assortative model, while the case p < q {\displaystyle p P j k {\displaystyle P_{ii}>P_{jk}} whenever j ≠ k {\displaystyle j\neq k} : all diagonal entries dominate all off-diagonal entries. A model is called weakly assortative if P i i > P i j {\displaystyle P_{ii}>P_{ij}} whenever i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} : each diagonal entry is only required to dominate the rest of its own row and column. Disassortative forms of this terminology exist, by reversing all inequalities. For some algorithms, recovery might be easier for block models with assortative or disassortative conditions of this form. == Typical statistical tasks == Much of the literature on algorithmic community detection addresses three statistical tasks: detection, partial recovery, and exact recovery. === Detection === The goal of detection algorithms is simply to determine, given a sampled graph, whether the graph has latent community structure. More precisely, a graph might be generated, with some known prior probability, from a known stochastic block model, and otherwise from a similar Erdos-Renyi model. The algorithmic task is to correctly identify which of these two underlying models generated the graph. === Partial recovery === In partial recovery, the goal is to approximately determine the latent partition into communities, in the sense of finding a partition that is correlated with the true partition significantly better than a random guess. === Exact recovery === In exact recovery, the goal is to recover the latent partition into communities exactly. The community sizes and probability matrix may be known or unknown. == Statistical lower bounds and threshold behavior == Stochastic block models exhibit a sharp threshold effect reminiscent of percolation thresholds. Suppose that we allow the size n {\displaystyle n} of the graph to grow, keeping the community sizes in fixed proportions. If the probability matrix remains fixed, tasks such as partial and exact recovery become feasible for all non-degenerate parameter settings. However, if we scale down the probability matrix at a suitable rate as n {\displaystyle n} increases, we observe a sharp phase transition: for certain settings of the parameters, it will become possible to achieve recovery with probability tending to 1, whereas on the opposite side of the parameter threshold, the probability of recovery tends to 0 no matter what algorithm is used. For partial recovery, the appropriate scaling is to take P i j = P ~ i j / n {\displaystyle P_{ij}={\tilde {P}}_{ij}/n} for fixed P ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {P}}} , resulting in graphs of constant average degree. In the case of two equal-sized communities, in the assortative planted partition model with probability matrix P = ( p ~ / n q ~ / n q ~ / n p ~ / n ) , {\displaystyle P=\left({\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde {p}}/n&{\tilde {q}}/n\\{\tilde {q}}/n&{\tilde {p}}/n\end{array}}\right),} partial recovery is feasible with probability 1 − o ( 1 ) {\displaystyle 1-o(1)} whenever ( p ~ − q ~ ) 2 > 2 ( p ~ + q ~ ) {\displaystyle ({\tilde {p}}-{\tilde {q}})^{2}>2({\tilde {p}}+{\tilde {q}})} , whereas any estimator fails partial recovery with probability 1 − o ( 1 ) {\displaystyle 1-o(1)} whenever ( p ~ − q ~ ) 2 < 2 ( p ~ + q ~ ) {\displaystyle ({\tilde {p}}-{\tilde {q}})^{2}<2({\tilde {p}}+{\tilde {q}})} . For exact recovery, the appropriate scaling is to take P i j = P ~ i j log ⁡ n / n {\displaystyle P_{ij}={\tilde {P}}_{ij}\log n/n} , resulting in graphs of logarithmic average degree. Here a similar threshold exists: for the assortative planted partition model with r {\displaystyle r} equal-sized communities, the threshold lies at p ~ − q ~ = r {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\tilde {p}}}-{\sqrt {\tilde {q}}}={\sqrt {r}}} . In fact, the exact recovery threshold is known for the fully general stochastic block model. == Algorithms == In principle, exact recovery can be solved in its feasible range using maximum likelihood, but this amounts to solving a constrained or regularized cut problem such as minimum bisection that is typically NP-complete. Hence, no known efficient algorithms will correctly compute the maximum-likelihood estimate in the worst case. However, a wide variety of algorithms perform well in the average case, and many high-probability performance guarantees have been proven for algorithms in both the partial and exact recovery settings. Successful algorithms include spectral clustering of the vertices, semidefinite programming, forms of belief propagation, and community detection among others. == Variants == Several variants of the model exist. One minor tweak allocates vertices to communities randomly, according to a categorical distribution, rather than in a fixed partition. More significant variants include the degree-corrected stochastic block model, the hierarchical stochastic block model, the geometric block model, censored block model and the mixed-membership block model. == Topic models == Stochastic block model have been recognised to be a topic model on bipartite networks. In a network of documents and words, Stochastic block model can identify topics: group of words with a similar meaning. == Extensions to signed graphs == Signed graphs allow for both favorable and adverse relationships and serve as a common model choice for various data analysis applications, e.g., correlation clustering. The stochastic block model can be trivially extended to signed graphs by assigning both positive and negative edge weights or equivalently using a difference of adjacency matrices of two stochastic block models. == DARPA/MIT/AWS Graph Challenge: streaming stochastic block partition == GraphChallenge encourages community approaches to developing new solutions for analyzing graphs and sparse data derived from social media, sensor feeds, and scientific data to enable relationships between events to be discovered as they unfold in the field. Streaming stochastic block partition is one of the challenges since 2017. Spectral clustering has demonstrated outstanding performance compared to the original and even improved base algorithm, matching its quality of clusters while being multiple orders of magnitude faster.

  Read more →
• 

  Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization

  Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO), also known as unconstrained binary quadratic programming (UBQP), is a combinatorial optimization problem with a wide range of applications from finance and economics to machine learning. QUBO is an NP hard problem, and for many classical problems from theoretical computer science, like maximum cut, graph coloring and the partition problem, embeddings into QUBO have been formulated. Embeddings for machine learning models include support-vector machines, clustering and probabilistic graphical models. Moreover, due to its close connection to Ising models, QUBO constitutes a central problem class for adiabatic quantum computation, where it is solved through a physical process called quantum annealing. == Definition == Let B = { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {B} =\lbrace 0,1\rbrace } the set of binary digits (or bits), then B n {\displaystyle \mathbb {B} ^{n}} is the set of binary vectors of fixed length n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } . Given a symmetric or upper triangular matrix Q ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} , whose entries Q i j {\displaystyle Q_{ij}} define a weight for each pair of indices i , j ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i,j\in \lbrace 1,\dots ,n\rbrace } , we can define the function f Q : B n → R {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}:\mathbb {B} ^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } that assigns a value to each binary vector x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} through f Q ( x ) = x ⊺ Q x = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 n Q i j x i x j . {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Qx}}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{n}Q_{ij}x_{i}x_{j}.} Alternatively, the linear and quadratic parts can be separated as f Q ′ , q ( x ) = x ⊺ Q ′ x + q ⊺ x , {\displaystyle f_{{\boldsymbol {Q}}',{\boldsymbol {q}}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Q}}'{\boldsymbol {x}}+{\boldsymbol {q}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {x}},} where Q ′ ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}'\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} and q ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {q}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . This is equivalent to the previous definition through Q = Q ′ + diag ⁡ [ q ] {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}={\boldsymbol {Q}}'+\operatorname {diag} [{\boldsymbol {q}}]} using the diag operator, exploiting that x = x ⋅ x {\displaystyle x=x\cdot x} for all binary values x {\displaystyle x} . Intuitively, the weight Q i j {\displaystyle Q_{ij}} is added if both x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} and x j = 1 {\displaystyle x_{j}=1} . The QUBO problem consists of finding a binary vector x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} that minimizes f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} , i.e., ∀ x ∈ B n : f Q ( x ∗ ) ≤ f Q ( x ) {\displaystyle \forall {\boldsymbol {x}}\in \mathbb {B} ^{n}:~f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}}^{})\leq f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})} . In general, x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} is not unique, meaning there may be a set of minimizing vectors with equal value w.r.t. f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} . The complexity of QUBO arises from the number of candidate binary vectors to be evaluated, as | B n | = 2 n {\displaystyle \left|\mathbb {B} ^{n}\right|=2^{n}} grows exponentially in n {\displaystyle n} . Sometimes, QUBO is defined as the problem of maximizing f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} , which is equivalent to minimizing f − Q = − f Q {\displaystyle f_{-{\boldsymbol {Q}}}=-f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} . == Properties == QUBO is scale invariant for positive factors α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} , which leave the optimum x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} unchanged: f α Q ( x ) = x ⊺ ( α Q ) x = α ( x ⊺ Q x ) = α f Q ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{\alpha {\boldsymbol {Q}}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }(\alpha {\boldsymbol {Q}}){\boldsymbol {x}}=\alpha ({\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Qx}})=\alpha f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})} . In its general form, QUBO is NP-hard and cannot be solved efficiently by any known polynomial-time algorithm. However, there are polynomially-solvable special cases, where Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} has certain properties, for example: If all coefficients are positive, the optimum is trivially x ∗ = ( 0 , … , 0 ) ⊺ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}=(0,\dots ,0)^{\intercal }} . Similarly, if all coefficients are negative, the optimum is x ∗ = ( 1 , … , 1 ) ⊺ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}=(1,\dots ,1)^{\intercal }} . If Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} is diagonal, the bits can be optimized independently, and the problem is solvable in O ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n)} . The optimal variable assignments are simply x i ∗ = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}^{}=1} if Q i i < 0 {\displaystyle Q_{ii}<0} , and x i ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}^{}=0} otherwise. If all off-diagonal elements of Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} are non-positive, the corresponding QUBO problem is solvable in polynomial time. QUBO can be solved using integer linear programming solvers like CPLEX or Gurobi Optimizer. This is possible since QUBO can be reformulated as a linear constrained binary optimization problem. To achieve this, substitute the product x i x j {\displaystyle x_{i}x_{j}} by an additional binary variable z i j ∈ B {\displaystyle z_{ij}\in \mathbb {B} } and add the constraints x i ≥ z i j {\displaystyle x_{i}\geq z_{ij}} , x j ≥ z i j {\displaystyle x_{j}\geq z_{ij}} and x i + x j − 1 ≤ z i j {\displaystyle x_{i}+x_{j}-1\leq z_{ij}} . Note that z i j {\displaystyle z_{ij}} can also be relaxed to continuous variables within the bounds zero and one. == Applications == QUBO is a structurally simple, yet computationally hard optimization problem. It can be used to encode a wide range of optimization problems from various scientific areas. === Maximum Cut === Given a graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} with vertex set V = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle V=\lbrace 1,\dots ,n\rbrace } and edges E ⊆ V × V {\displaystyle E\subseteq V\times V} , the maximum cut (max-cut) problem consists of finding two subsets S , T ⊆ V {\displaystyle S,T\subseteq V} with T = V ∖ S {\displaystyle T=V\setminus S} , such that the number of edges between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} is maximized. The more general weighted max-cut problem assumes edge weights w i j ≥ 0 ∀ i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle w_{ij}\geq 0~\forall i,j\in V} , with ( i , j ) ∉ E ⇒ w i j = 0 {\displaystyle (i,j)\notin E\Rightarrow w_{ij}=0} , and asks for a partition S , T ⊆ V {\displaystyle S,T\subseteq V} that maximizes the sum of edge weights between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , i.e., max S ⊆ V ∑ i ∈ S , j ∉ S w i j . {\displaystyle \max _{S\subseteq V}\sum _{i\in S,j\notin S}w_{ij}.} By setting w i j = 1 {\displaystyle w_{ij}=1} for all ( i , j ) ∈ E {\displaystyle (i,j)\in E} this becomes equivalent to the original max-cut problem above, which is why we focus on this more general form in the following. For every vertex in i ∈ V {\displaystyle i\in V} we introduce a binary variable x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} with the interpretation x i = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}=0} if i ∈ S {\displaystyle i\in S} and x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} if i ∈ T {\displaystyle i\in T} . As T = V ∖ S {\displaystyle T=V\setminus S} , every i {\displaystyle i} is in exactly one set, meaning there is a 1:1 correspondence between binary vectors x ∈ B n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}\in \mathbb {B} ^{n}} and partitions of V {\displaystyle V} into two subsets. We observe that, for any i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle i,j\in V} , the expression x i ( 1 − x j ) + ( 1 − x i ) x j {\displaystyle x_{i}(1-x_{j})+(1-x_{i})x_{j}} evaluates to 1 if and only if i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} are in different subsets, equivalent to logical XOR. Let W ∈ R + n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {W}}\in \mathbb {R} _{+}^{n\times n}} with W i j = w i j ∀ i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle W_{ij}=w_{ij}~\forall i,j\in V} . By extending above expression to matrix-vector form we find that x ⊺ W ( 1 − x ) + ( 1 − x ) ⊺ W x = − 2 x ⊺ W x + ( W 1 + W ⊺ 1 ) ⊺ x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {W}}({\boldsymbol {1}}-{\boldsymbol {x}})+({\boldsymbol {1}}-{\boldsymbol {x}})^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Wx}}=-2{\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Wx}}+({\boldsymbol {W1}}+{\boldsymbol {W}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {1}})^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {x}}} is the sum of weights of all edges between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , where 1 = ( 1 , 1 , … , 1 ) ⊺ ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {1}}=(1,1,\dots ,1)^{\intercal }\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . As this is a quadratic function over x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} , it is a QUBO problem whose parameter matrix we can read from above expression as Q = 2 W − diag ⁡ [ W 1 + W ⊺ 1 ] , {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}=2{\boldsymbol {W}}-\operatorname {diag} [{\boldsymbol {W1}}+{\boldsymbol {W}}^{\intercal }{\bol

  Read more →
• 

  Commonsense knowledge (artificial intelligence)

  In artificial intelligence research, commonsense knowledge consists of facts about the everyday world, such as "Lemons are sour" or "Cows say moo", that all humans are expected to know. It is currently an unsolved problem in artificial general intelligence. The first AI program to address common sense knowledge was Advice Taker in 1959 by John McCarthy. Commonsense knowledge can underpin a commonsense reasoning process, to attempt inferences such as "You might bake a cake because you want people to eat the cake." A natural language processing process can be attached to the commonsense knowledge base to allow the knowledge base to attempt to answer questions about the world. Common sense knowledge also helps to solve problems in the face of incomplete information. Using widely held beliefs about everyday objects, or common sense knowledge, AI systems make common sense assumptions or default assumptions about the unknown similar to the way people do. In an AI system or in English, this is expressed as "Normally P holds", "Usually P" or "Typically P so Assume P". For example, if we know the fact "Tweety is a bird", because we know the commonly held belief about birds, "typically birds fly," without knowing anything else about Tweety, we may reasonably assume the fact that "Tweety can fly." As more knowledge of the world is discovered or learned over time, the AI system can revise its assumptions about Tweety using a truth maintenance process. If we later learn that "Tweety is a penguin" then truth maintenance revises this assumption because we also know "penguins do not fly". == Commonsense reasoning == Commonsense reasoning simulates the human ability to use commonsense knowledge to make presumptions about the type and essence of ordinary situations they encounter every day, and to change their "minds" should new information come to light. This includes time, missing or incomplete information and cause and effect. The ability to explain cause and effect is an important aspect of explainable AI. Truth maintenance algorithms automatically provide an explanation facility because they create elaborate records of presumptions. Compared with humans, all existing computer programs that attempt human-level AI perform extremely poorly on modern "commonsense reasoning" benchmark tests such as the Winograd Schema Challenge. The problem of attaining human-level competency at "commonsense knowledge" tasks is considered to probably be "AI complete" (that is, solving it would require the ability to synthesize a fully human-level intelligence), although some oppose this notion and believe compassionate intelligence is also required for human-level AI. Common sense reasoning has been applied successfully in more limited domains such as natural language processing and automated diagnosis or analysis. == Commonsense knowledge base construction == Compiling comprehensive knowledge bases of commonsense assertions (CSKBs) is a long-standing challenge in AI research. From early expert-driven efforts like CYC and WordNet, significant advances were achieved via the crowdsourced OpenMind Commonsense project, which led to the crowdsourced ConceptNet KB. Several approaches have attempted to automate CSKB construction, most notably, via text mining (WebChild, Quasimodo, TransOMCS, Ascent), as well as harvesting these directly from pre-trained language models (AutoTOMIC). These resources are significantly larger than ConceptNet, though the automated construction mostly makes them of moderately lower quality. Challenges also remain on the representation of commonsense knowledge: Most CSKB projects follow a triple data model, which is not necessarily best suited for breaking more complex natural language assertions. A notable exception here is GenericsKB, which applies no further normalization to sentences, but retains them in full. == Applications == Around 2013, MIT researchers developed BullySpace, an extension of the commonsense knowledgebase ConceptNet, to catch taunting social media comments. BullySpace included over 200 semantic assertions based around stereotypes, to help the system infer that comments like "Put on a wig and lipstick and be who you really are" are more likely to be an insult if directed at a boy than a girl. ConceptNet has also been used by chatbots and by computers that compose original fiction. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, common sense knowledge was used in an intelligent software agent to detect violations of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. == Data == As an example, as of 2012 ConceptNet includes these 21 language-independent relations: IsA (An "RV" is a "vehicle" | X is an instance of a Y) UsedFor (a "cake tin" is used for "making cakes" | X is used for the purpose Y) HasA (A "rabbit" has a "tail" | X possesses Y element or feature) CapableOf (a "cook" is capable of "making baked goods" | X is capable of doing Y) Desires (a "child" desires "the aroma of baking" | X has a desire for Y) CreatedBy ("cake" is created by a "baker" | X is created by Y) PartOf (a "knife" is be part of a "knife set" | X is a part of Y) Causes ("Heat" causes "cooking"| X is what causes Y) LocatedNear (the "oven" is located near the "refrigerator" | X is located near Y) AtLocation (Somewhere a "Cook" can be at a "restaurant" | X is at the location of Y) DefinedAs (a "Cupcake" is defined as a "cake" that also has the qualities of being "small", "baked within a wrapper", and "containing only one area of frosting or icing" | X is defined as Y that also has the properties A, B & C) SymbolOf (a "heart" is a symbol of "affection" | X is a symbolic representation of Y) ReceivesAction ("cake" can receive the action of being "eaten" | X is capable of receiving action Y) HasPrerequisite ("baking" has the prerequisite of obtaining the "ingredients" | X cannot do Y unless A does B) MotivatedByGoal ("baking" is motivated by the goal of "consumption"/"eating" | X has the motivation of Y goal) CausesDesire ("baking" makesYou want to "follow recipe" | X causes the desire to do Y) MadeOf ("Cake" is made of "flour"/"eggs"/"sugar"/"oil"/etc | X is made of Y) HasFirstSubevent ("baking" has first subevent "make batter" | To do X the first thing that needs to be done is Y) HasSubevent ("eat" has subevent "swallow" | Doing X will lead to Y event following) HasLastSubevent ("sleeping" has last subevent of "waking" | Doing X ends with the event Y) == Commonsense knowledge bases == Cyc Open Mind Common Sense (data source) and ConceptNet (datastore and NLP engine) Evi Graphiq

  Read more →
• 

  Charge based boundary element fast multipole method

  The charge-based formulation of the boundary element method (BEM) is a dimensionality reduction numerical technique that is used to model quasistatic electromagnetic phenomena in highly complex conducting media (targeting, e.g., the human brain) with a very large (up to approximately 1 billion) number of unknowns. The charge-based BEM solves an integral equation of the potential theory written in terms of the induced surface charge density. This formulation is naturally combined with fast multipole method (FMM) acceleration, and the entire method is known as charge-based BEM-FMM. The combination of BEM and FMM is a common technique in different areas of computational electromagnetics and, in the context of bioelectromagnetism, it provides improvements over the finite element method. == Historical development == Along with more common electric potential-based BEM, the quasistatic charge-based BEM, derived in terms of the single-layer (charge) density, for a single-compartment medium has been known in the potential theory since the beginning of the 20th century. For multi-compartment conducting media, the surface charge density formulation first appeared in discretized form (for faceted interfaces) in the 1964 paper by Gelernter and Swihart. A subsequent continuous form, including time-dependent and dielectric effects, appeared in the 1967 paper by Barnard, Duck, and Lynn. The charge-based BEM has also been formulated for conducting, dielectric, and magnetic media, and used in different applications. In 2009, Greengard et al. successfully applied the charge-based BEM with fast multipole acceleration to molecular electrostatics of dielectrics. A similar approach to realistic modeling of the human brain with multiple conducting compartments was first described by Makarov et al. in 2018. Along with this, the BEM-based multilevel fast multipole method has been widely used in radar and antenna studies at microwave frequencies as well as in acoustics. == Physical background - surface charges in biological media == The charge-based BEM is based on the concept of an impressed (or primary) electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} and a secondary electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} . The impressed field is usually known a priori or is trivial to find. For the human brain, the impressed electric field can be classified as one of the following: A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed density of EEG or MEG current sources in a homogeneous infinite medium with the conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } at the source location; An instantaneous solenoidal field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of an induction coil obtained from Faraday's law of induction in a homogeneous infinite medium (air), when transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) problems are concerned; A surface field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed surface current density J i = σ E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {J} ^{i}=\sigma \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of current electrodes injecting electric current at a boundary of a compartment with conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } when transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) or deep brain stimulation (DBS) are concerned; A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of charges deposited on voltage electrodes for tDCS or DBS. This specific problem requires a coupled treatment since these charges will depend on the environment; In application to multiscale modeling, a field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} obtained from any other macroscopic numerical solution in a small (mesoscale or microscale) spatial domain within the brain. For example, a constant field can be used. When the impressed field is "turned on", free charges located within a conducting volume D immediately begin to redistribute and accumulate at the boundaries (interfaces) of regions of different conductivity in D. A surface charge density ρ ( r ) {\displaystyle \rho (\mathbf {r} )} appears on the conductivity interfaces. This charge density induces a secondary conservative electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} following Coulomb's law. One example is a human under a direct current powerline with the known field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} directed down. The superior surface of the human's conducting body will be charged negatively while its inferior portion is charged positively. These surface charges create a secondary electric field that effectively cancels or blocks the primary field everywhere in the body so that no current will flow within the body under DC steady state conditions. Another example is a human head with electrodes attached. At any conductivity interface with a normal vector n {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} } pointing from an "inside" (-) compartment of conductivity σ − {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}} to an "outside" (+) compartment of conductivity σ + {\displaystyle \sigma ^{+}} , Kirchhoff's current law requires continuity of the normal component of the electric current density. This leads to the interfacial boundary condition in the form for every facet at a triangulated interface. As long as σ ± {\displaystyle \sigma ^{\pm }} are different from each other, the two normal components of the electric field, E ± ⋅ n {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{\pm }\cdot \mathbf {n} } , must also be different. Such a jump across the interface is only possible when a sheet of surface charge exists at that interface. Thus, if an electric current or voltage is applied, the surface charge density follows. The goal of the numerical analysis is to find the unknown surface charge distribution and thus the total electric field E = E i + E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =\mathbf {E} ^{i}+\mathbf {E} ^{s}} (and the total electric potential if required) anywhere in space. == System of equations for surface charges == Below, a derivation is given based on Gauss's law and Coulomb's law. All conductivity interfaces, denoted by S, are discretized into planar triangular facets t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} with centers r m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}} . Assume that an m-th facet with the normal vector n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} _{m}} and area A m {\displaystyle A_{m}} carries a uniform surface charge density ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . If a volumetric tetrahedral mesh were present, the charged facets would belong to tetrahedra with different conductivity values. We first compute the electric field E m + {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}} at the point r m + δ n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}+\delta \mathbf {n} _{m}} , for δ → 0 + {\displaystyle \delta \rightarrow 0^{+}} i.e., just outside facet 𝑚 at its center. This field contains three contributions: The continuous impressed electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} itself; An electric field of the m-th charged facet itself. Very close to the facet, it can be approximated as the electric field of an infinite sheet of uniform surface charge ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . By Gauss's law, it is given by + ρ m / 2 ε 0 ⋅ n m {\displaystyle +\rho _{m}/2\varepsilon _{0}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} where ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} is a background electrical permittivity; An electric field generated by all other facets t n {\displaystyle t_{n}} , which we approximate as point charges of charge A n ρ n {\displaystyle A_{n}\rho _{n}} at each center r n {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{n}} . A similar treatment holds for the electric field E m − {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}} just inside facet 𝑚, but the electric field of the flat sheet of charge changes its sign. Using Coulomb's law to calculate the contribution of facets different from t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} , we find From this equation, we see that the normal component of the electric field indeed undergoes a jump through the charged interface. This is equivalent to a jump relation of the potential theory. As a second step, the two expressions for E m ± {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{\pm }} are substituted into the interfacial boundary condition σ − E m − ⋅ n m = σ + E m + ⋅ n m {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}=\sigma ^{+}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} , applied to every facet 𝑚. This operation leads to a system of linear equations for unknown charge densities ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} which solves the problem: where K m = σ − − σ + σ − + σ + {\displaystyle K_{m}={\frac {\sigma ^{-}-\sigma ^{+}}{\sigma ^{-}+\sigma ^{+}}}} is the electric conductivity contrast at the m-th facet. The normalization constant ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} will cancel out after the solution is substituted in the expression for E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} and becomes redundant. == Application of fast multipole method == For modern characterizations of brain topologies with ever-increasing levels of complexity, the above system of equations for ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} is very large; it is t

  Read more →
• 

  Averaged one-dependence estimators

  Averaged one-dependence estimators (AODE) is a probabilistic classification learning technique. It was developed to address the attribute-independence problem of the popular naive Bayes classifier. It frequently develops substantially more accurate classifiers than naive Bayes at the cost of a modest increase in the amount of computation. == The AODE classifier == AODE seeks to estimate the probability of each class y given a specified set of features x1, ... xn, P(y | x1, ... xn). To do so it uses the formula P ^ ( y ∣ x 1 , … x n ) = ∑ i : 1 ≤ i ≤ n ∧ F ( x i ) ≥ m P ^ ( y , x i ) ∏ j = 1 n P ^ ( x j ∣ y , x i ) ∑ y ′ ∈ Y ∑ i : 1 ≤ i ≤ n ∧ F ( x i ) ≥ m P ^ ( y ′ , x i ) ∏ j = 1 n P ^ ( x j ∣ y ′ , x i ) {\displaystyle {\hat {P}}(y\mid x_{1},\ldots x_{n})={\frac {\sum _{i:1\leq i\leq n\wedge F(x_{i})\geq m}{\hat {P}}(y,x_{i})\prod _{j=1}^{n}{\hat {P}}(x_{j}\mid y,x_{i})}{\sum _{y^{\prime }\in Y}\sum _{i:1\leq i\leq n\wedge F(x_{i})\geq m}{\hat {P}}(y^{\prime },x_{i})\prod _{j=1}^{n}{\hat {P}}(x_{j}\mid y^{\prime },x_{i})}}} where P ^ ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\hat {P}}(\cdot )} denotes an estimate of P ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle P(\cdot )} , F ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle F(\cdot )} is the frequency with which the argument appears in the sample data and m is a user specified minimum frequency with which a term must appear in order to be used in the outer summation. In recent practice m is usually set at 1. == Derivation of the AODE classifier == We seek to estimate P(y | x1, ... xn). By the definition of conditional probability P ( y ∣ x 1 , … x n ) = P ( y , x 1 , … x n ) P ( x 1 , … x n ) . {\displaystyle P(y\mid x_{1},\ldots x_{n})={\frac {P(y,x_{1},\ldots x_{n})}{P(x_{1},\ldots x_{n})}}.} For any 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} , P ( y , x 1 , … x n ) = P ( y , x i ) P ( x 1 , … x n ∣ y , x i ) . {\displaystyle P(y,x_{1},\ldots x_{n})=P(y,x_{i})P(x_{1},\ldots x_{n}\mid y,x_{i}).} Under an assumption that x1, ... xn are independent given y and xi, it follows that P ( y , x 1 , … x n ) = P ( y , x i ) ∏ j = 1 n P ( x j ∣ y , x i ) . {\displaystyle P(y,x_{1},\ldots x_{n})=P(y,x_{i})\prod _{j=1}^{n}P(x_{j}\mid y,x_{i}).} This formula defines a special form of One Dependence Estimator (ODE), a variant of the naive Bayes classifier that makes the above independence assumption that is weaker (and hence potentially less harmful) than the naive Bayes' independence assumption. In consequence, each ODE should create a less biased estimator than naive Bayes. However, because the base probability estimates are each conditioned by two variables rather than one, they are formed from less data (the training examples that satisfy both variables) and hence are likely to have more variance. AODE reduces this variance by averaging the estimates of all such ODEs. == Features of the AODE classifier == Like naive Bayes, AODE does not perform model selection and does not use tuneable parameters. As a result, it has low variance. It supports incremental learning whereby the classifier can be updated efficiently with information from new examples as they become available. It predicts class probabilities rather than simply predicting a single class, allowing the user to determine the confidence with which each classification can be made. Its probabilistic model can directly handle situations where some data are missing. AODE has computational complexity O ( l n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(ln^{2})} at training time and O ( k n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(kn^{2})} at classification time, where n is the number of features, l is the number of training examples and k is the number of classes. This makes it infeasible for application to high-dimensional data. However, within that limitation, it is linear with respect to the number of training examples and hence can efficiently process large numbers of training examples. == Implementations == The free Weka machine learning suite includes an implementation of AODE.

  Read more →