AI Detector Yang Dipakai Dosen

AI Detector Yang Dipakai Dosen — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  AI safety

  AI safety is an interdisciplinary field focused on preventing accidents, misuse, or other harmful consequences arising from artificial intelligence systems. It encompasses AI alignment (which aims to ensure AI systems behave as intended), monitoring AI systems for risks, and enhancing their robustness. The field is particularly concerned with existential risks posed by advanced AI models. Beyond technical research, AI safety involves developing norms and policies that promote safety, including advocacy for regulations at different levels of government. The field gained significant popularity in 2023, with rapid progress in generative AI and public concerns voiced by researchers and CEOs about potential dangers. During the 2023 AI Safety Summit, the United States and the United Kingdom both established their own AI Safety Institute. However, researchers have expressed concern that AI safety measures are not keeping pace with the rapid development of AI capabilities. == Motivations == Scholars discuss current risks from critical systems failures, bias, and AI-enabled surveillance, as well as emerging risks like technological unemployment, digital manipulation, weaponization, AI-enabled cyberattacks and bioterrorism. They also discuss speculative risks from losing control of future artificial general intelligence (AGI) agents, or from AI enabling perpetually stable dictatorships. === Existential safety === Some have criticized concerns about AGI, such as Andrew Ng who compared them in 2015 to "worrying about overpopulation on Mars when we have not even set foot on the planet yet". Stuart J. Russell on the other side urges caution, arguing that "it is better to anticipate human ingenuity than to underestimate it". AI researchers have widely differing opinions about the severity and primary sources of risk posed by AI technology – though surveys suggest that experts take high consequence risks seriously. In two surveys of AI researchers, the median respondent was optimistic about AI overall, but placed a 5% probability on an "extremely bad (e.g. human extinction)" outcome of advanced AI. In a 2022 survey of the natural language processing community, 37% agreed or weakly agreed that it is plausible that AI decisions could lead to a catastrophe that is "at least as bad as an all-out nuclear war". == History == Risks from AI began to be seriously discussed at the start of the computer age: Moreover, if we move in the direction of making machines which learn and whose behavior is modified by experience, we must face the fact that every degree of independence we give the machine is a degree of possible defiance of our wishes. In 1988 Blay Whitby published a book outlining the need for AI to be developed along ethical and socially responsible lines. From 2008 to 2009, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) commissioned a study to explore and address potential long-term societal influences of AI research and development. The panel was generally skeptical of the radical views expressed by science-fiction authors but agreed that "additional research would be valuable on methods for understanding and verifying the range of behaviors of complex computational systems to minimize unexpected outcomes". In 2011, Roman Yampolskiy introduced the term "AI safety engineering" at the Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence conference, listing prior failures of AI systems and arguing that "the frequency and seriousness of such events will steadily increase as AIs become more capable". In 2014, philosopher Nick Bostrom published the book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. He has the opinion that the rise of AGI has the potential to create various societal issues, ranging from the displacement of the workforce by AI, manipulation of political and military structures, to even the possibility of human extinction. His argument that future advanced systems may pose a threat to human existence prompted Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking to voice similar concerns. In 2015, dozens of artificial intelligence experts signed an open letter on artificial intelligence calling for research on the societal impacts of AI and outlining concrete directions. To date, the letter has been signed by over 8000 people including Yann LeCun, Shane Legg, Yoshua Bengio, and Stuart Russell. In the same year, a group of academics led by professor Stuart J. Russell founded the Center for Human-Compatible AI at the University of California Berkeley and the Future of Life Institute awarded $6.5 million in grants for research aimed at "ensuring artificial intelligence (AI) remains safe, ethical and beneficial". In 2016, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Carnegie Mellon University announced The Public Workshop on Safety and Control for Artificial Intelligence, which was one of a sequence of four White House workshops aimed at investigating "the advantages and drawbacks" of AI. In the same year, Concrete Problems in AI Safety – one of the first and most influential technical AI Safety agendas – was published. In 2017, the Future of Life Institute sponsored the Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI, where more than 100 thought leaders formulated principles for beneficial AI including "Race Avoidance: Teams developing AI systems should actively cooperate to avoid corner-cutting on safety standards". In 2018, the DeepMind Safety team outlined AI safety problems in specification, robustness, and assurance. The following year, researchers organized a workshop at ICLR that focused on these problem areas. In 2021, Unsolved Problems in ML Safety was published, outlining research directions in robustness, monitoring, alignment, and systemic safety. In 2023, Rishi Sunak said he wants the United Kingdom to be the "geographical home of global AI safety regulation" and to host the first global summit on AI safety. The AI safety summit took place in November 2023, and focused on the risks of misuse and loss of control associated with frontier AI models. During the summit the intention to create the International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI was announced. In 2024, The US and UK forged a new partnership on the science of AI safety. The MoU was signed on 1 April 2024 by US commerce secretary Gina Raimondo and UK technology secretary Michelle Donelan to jointly develop advanced AI model testing, following commitments announced at an AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park in November. In 2025, an international team of 96 experts chaired by Yoshua Bengio published the first International AI Safety Report. The report, commissioned by 30 nations and the United Nations, represents the first global scientific review of potential risks associated with advanced artificial intelligence. It details potential threats stemming from misuse, malfunction, and societal disruption, with the objective of informing policy through evidence-based findings, without providing specific recommendations. == Research focus == AI safety research areas include robustness, monitoring, and alignment. === Robustness === ==== Adversarial robustness ==== AI systems are often vulnerable to adversarial examples or "inputs to machine learning (ML) models that an attacker has intentionally designed to cause the model to make a mistake". For example, in 2013, Szegedy et al. discovered that adding specific imperceptible perturbations to an image could cause it to be misclassified with high confidence. This continues to be an issue with neural networks, though in recent work the perturbations are generally large enough to be perceptible. The image on the right is predicted to be an ostrich after the perturbation is applied. (Left) is a correctly predicted sample, (center) perturbation applied magnified by 10x, (right) adversarial example. Adversarial robustness is often associated with security. Researchers demonstrated that an audio signal could be imperceptibly modified so that speech-to-text systems transcribe it to any message the attacker chooses. Network intrusion and malware detection systems also must be adversarially robust since attackers may design their attacks to fool detectors. Models that represent objectives (reward models) must also be adversarially robust. For example, a reward model might estimate how helpful a text response is and a language model might be trained to maximize this score. Researchers have shown that if a language model is trained for long enough, it will leverage the vulnerabilities of the reward model to achieve a better score and perform worse on the intended task. This issue can be addressed by improving the adversarial robustness of the reward model. More generally, any AI system used to evaluate another AI system must be adversarially robust. This could include monitoring tools, since they could also potentially be tampered with to produce a higher reward. Large language models (LLMs) can be vulnerable to prom

  Read more →
• 

  Ordinal regression

  In statistics, ordinal regression, also called ordinal classification, is a type of regression analysis used for predicting an ordinal variable, i.e. a variable whose value exists on an arbitrary scale where only the relative ordering between different values is significant. It can be considered an intermediate problem between regression and classification. Examples of ordinal regression are ordered logit and ordered probit. Ordinal regression turns up often in the social sciences, for example in the modeling of human levels of preference (on a scale from, say, 1–5 for "very poor" through "excellent"), as well as in information retrieval. In machine learning, ordinal regression may also be called ranking learning. == Linear models for ordinal regression == Ordinal regression can be performed using a generalized linear model (GLM) that fits both a coefficient vector and a set of thresholds to a dataset. Suppose one has a set of observations, represented by length-p vectors x1 through xn, with associated responses y1 through yn, where each yi is an ordinal variable on a scale 1, ..., K. For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we assume y is a non-decreasing vector, that is, yi ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } yi+1. To this data, one fits a length-p coefficient vector w and a set of thresholds θ1, ..., θK−1 with the property that θ1 < θ2 < ... < θK−1. This set of thresholds divides the real number line into K disjoint segments, corresponding to the K response levels. The model can now be formulated as Pr ( y ≤ i ∣ x ) = σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \Pr(y\leq i\mid \mathbf {x} )=\sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )} or, the cumulative probability of the response y being at most i is given by a function σ (the inverse link function) applied to a linear function of x. Several choices exist for σ; the logistic function σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) = 1 1 + e − ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )={\frac {1}{1+e^{-(\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )}}}} gives the ordered logit model, while using the CDF of the standard normal distribution gives the ordered probit model. A third option is to use an exponential function σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) = 1 − exp ⁡ ( − exp ⁡ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) ) {\displaystyle \sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )=1-\exp(-\exp(\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} ))} which gives the proportional hazards model. === Latent variable model === The probit version of the above model can be justified by assuming the existence of a real-valued latent variable (unobserved quantity) y, determined by y ∗ = w ⋅ x + ε {\displaystyle y^{}=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} +\varepsilon } where ε is normally distributed with zero mean and unit variance, conditioned on x. The response variable y results from an "incomplete measurement" of y, where one only determines the interval into which y falls: y = { 1 if y ∗ ≤ θ 1 , 2 if θ 1 < y ∗ ≤ θ 2 , 3 if θ 2 < y ∗ ≤ θ 3 ⋮ K if θ K − 1 < y ∗ . {\displaystyle y={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if}}~~y^{}\leq \theta _{1},\\2&{\text{if}}~~\theta _{1} Read more →

• 

  Silhouette (clustering)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Sample exclusion dimension

  In computational learning theory, sample exclusion dimensions arise in the study of exact concept learning with queries. In algorithmic learning theory, a concept over a domain X is a Boolean function over X. Here we only consider finite domains. A partial approximation S of a concept c is a Boolean function over Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} such that c is an extension to S. Let C be a class of concepts and c be a concept (not necessarily in C). Then a specifying set for c w.r.t. C, denoted by S is a partial approximation S of c such that C contains at most one extension to S. If we have observed a specifying set for some concept w.r.t. C, then we have enough information to verify a concept in C with at most one more mind change. The exclusion dimension, denoted by XD(C), of a concept class is the maximum of the size of the minimum specifying set of c' with respect to C, where c' is a concept not in C.

  Read more →
• 

  Computer vision dazzle

  Computer vision dazzle, also known as CV dazzle, dazzle makeup, or anti-surveillance makeup, is a type of camouflage used to hamper facial recognition software, inspired by dazzle camouflage used by vehicles such as ships and planes. == Methods == CV dazzle combines stylized makeup, asymmetric hair, and sometimes infrared lights built in to glasses or clothing to break up detectable facial patterns recognized by computer vision algorithms in much the same way that warships contrasted color and used sloping lines and curves to distort the structure of a vessel. It has been shown to be somewhat successful at defeating face detection software in common use, including that employed by Facebook. CV dazzle attempts to block detection by facial recognition technologies such as DeepFace "by creating an 'anti-face'". It uses occlusion, covering certain facial features; transformation, altering the shape or colour of parts of the face; and a combination of the two. Prominent artists employing this technique include Adam Harvey and Jillian Mayer. == Use in protests == Computer vision dazzle makeup has been used by protestors in several different protest movements. Its use as a protesting aid has often been found ineffective. It may be effective to thwart computer technology, but draws human attention, is easy for human monitors to spot on security cameras, and makes it hard for protestors to blend in within a crowd. Advances in facial recognition technology make dazzle makeup increasingly ineffective.

  Read more →
• 

  Huber loss

  In statistics, the Huber loss is a loss function used in robust regression, that is less sensitive to outliers in data than the squared error loss. A variant for classification is also sometimes used. == Definition == The Huber loss function describes the penalty incurred by an estimation procedure f. Huber (1964) defines the loss function piecewise by L δ ( a ) = { 1 2 a 2 for | a | ≤ δ , δ ⋅ ( | a | − 1 2 δ ) , otherwise. {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(a)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}{a^{2}}&{\text{for }}|a|\leq \delta ,\\[4pt]\delta \cdot \left(|a|-{\frac {1}{2}}\delta \right),&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} This function is quadratic for small values of a, and linear for large values, with equal values and slopes of the different sections at the two points where | a | = δ {\displaystyle |a|=\delta } . The variable a often refers to the residuals, that is to the difference between the observed and predicted values a = y − f ( x ) {\displaystyle a=y-f(x)} , so the former can be expanded to L δ ( y , f ( x ) ) = { 1 2 ( y − f ( x ) ) 2 for | y − f ( x ) | ≤ δ , δ ⋅ ( | y − f ( x ) | − 1 2 δ ) , otherwise. {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(y,f(x))={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}{\left(y-f(x)\right)}^{2}&{\text{for }}\left|y-f(x)\right|\leq \delta ,\\[4pt]\delta \ \cdot \left(\left|y-f(x)\right|-{\frac {1}{2}}\delta \right),&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The Huber loss is the convolution of the absolute value function with the rectangular function, scaled and translated. Thus it "smoothens out" the former's corner at the origin. == Motivation == Two very commonly used loss functions are the squared loss, L ( a ) = a 2 {\displaystyle L(a)=a^{2}} , and the absolute loss, L ( a ) = | a | {\displaystyle L(a)=|a|} . The squared loss function results in an arithmetic mean-unbiased estimator, and the absolute-value loss function results in a median-unbiased estimator (in the one-dimensional case, and a geometric median-unbiased estimator for the multi-dimensional case). The squared loss has the disadvantage that it has the tendency to be dominated by outliers—when summing over a set of a {\displaystyle a} 's (as in ∑ i = 1 n L ( a i ) {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}L(a_{i})} ), the sample mean is influenced too much by a few particularly large a {\displaystyle a} -values when the distribution is heavy tailed: in terms of estimation theory, the asymptotic relative efficiency of the mean is poor for heavy-tailed distributions. As defined above, the Huber loss function is strongly convex in a uniform neighborhood of its minimum a = 0 {\displaystyle a=0} ; at the boundary of this uniform neighborhood, the Huber loss function has a differentiable extension to an affine function at points a = − δ {\displaystyle a=-\delta } and a = δ {\displaystyle a=\delta } . These properties allow it to combine much of the sensitivity of the mean-unbiased, minimum-variance estimator of the mean (using the quadratic loss function) and the robustness of the median-unbiased estimator (using the absolute value function). == Pseudo-Huber loss function == The Pseudo-Huber loss function can be used as a smooth approximation of the Huber loss function. It combines the best properties of L2 squared loss and L1 absolute loss by being strongly convex when close to the target/minimum and less steep for extreme values. The scale at which the Pseudo-Huber loss function transitions from L2 loss for values close to the minimum to L1 loss for extreme values and the steepness at extreme values can be controlled by the δ {\displaystyle \delta } value. The Pseudo-Huber loss function ensures that derivatives are continuous for all degrees. It is defined as L δ ( a ) = δ 2 ( 1 + ( a / δ ) 2 − 1 ) . {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(a)=\delta ^{2}\left({\sqrt {1+(a/\delta )^{2}}}-1\right).} As such, this function approximates a 2 / 2 {\displaystyle a^{2}/2} for small values of a {\displaystyle a} , and approximates a straight line with slope δ {\displaystyle \delta } for large values of a {\displaystyle a} . While the above is the most common form, other smooth approximations of the Huber loss function also exist. == Variant for classification == For classification purposes, a variant of the Huber loss called modified Huber is sometimes used. Given a prediction f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} (a real-valued classifier score) and a true binary class label y ∈ { + 1 , − 1 } {\displaystyle y\in \{+1,-1\}} , the modified Huber loss is defined as L ( y , f ( x ) ) = { max ( 0 , 1 − y f ( x ) ) 2 for y f ( x ) > − 1 , − 4 y f ( x ) otherwise. {\displaystyle L(y,f(x))={\begin{cases}\max(0,1-y\,f(x))^{2}&{\text{for }}\,\,y\,f(x)>-1,\\[4pt]-4y\,f(x)&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The term max ( 0 , 1 − y f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \max(0,1-y\,f(x))} is the hinge loss used by support vector machines; the quadratically smoothed hinge loss is a generalization of L {\displaystyle L} . == Applications == The Huber loss function is used in robust statistics, M-estimation and additive modelling.

  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 →
• 

  Training, validation, and test data sets

  In machine learning, a common task is the study and construction of algorithms that can learn from and make predictions on data. Such algorithms function by making data-driven predictions or decisions, through building a mathematical model from input data. These input data used to build the model are usually divided into multiple data sets. In particular, three data sets are commonly used in different stages of the creation of the model: training, validation, and testing sets. The model is initially fit on a training data set, which is a set of examples used to fit the parameters (e.g. weights of connections between neurons in artificial neural networks) of the model. The model (e.g. a naive Bayes classifier) is trained on the training data set using a supervised learning method, for example using optimization methods such as gradient descent or stochastic gradient descent. In practice, the training data set often consists of pairs of an input vector (or scalar) and the corresponding output vector (or scalar), where the answer key is commonly denoted as the target (or label). The current model is run with the training data set and produces a result, which is then compared with the target, for each input vector in the training data set. Based on the result of the comparison and the specific learning algorithm being used, the parameters of the model are adjusted. The model fitting can include both variable selection and parameter estimation. Successively, the fitted model is used to predict the responses for the observations in a second data set called the validation data set. The validation data set provides an unbiased evaluation of a model fit on the training data set while tuning the model's hyperparameters (e.g. the number of hidden units—layers and layer widths—in a neural network). Validation data sets can be used for regularization by early stopping (stopping training when the error on the validation data set increases, as this is a sign of over-fitting to the training data set). This simple procedure is complicated in practice by the fact that the validation data set's error may fluctuate during training, producing multiple local minima. This complication has led to the creation of many ad-hoc rules for deciding when over-fitting has truly begun. Finally, the test data set is a data set used to provide an unbiased evaluation of a model fit on the training data set. When the data in the test data set has never been used (for example in cross-validation), the test data set is called a holdout data set. The term "validation set" is sometimes used instead of "test set" in some literature (e.g., if the original data set was partitioned into only two subsets, the test set might be referred to as the validation set). Deciding the sizes and strategies for data set division in training, test and validation sets is very dependent on the problem and data available. == Training data set == A training data set is a data set of examples used during the learning process and is used to fit the parameters (e.g., weights) of, for example, a classifier. For classification tasks, a supervised learning algorithm looks at the training data set to determine, or learn, the optimal combinations of variables that will generate a good predictive model. The goal is to produce a trained (fitted) model that generalizes well to new, unknown data. The fitted model is evaluated using “new” examples from the held-out data sets (validation and test data sets) to estimate the model’s accuracy in classifying new data. To reduce the risk of issues such as over-fitting, the examples in the validation and test data sets should not be used to train the model. Most approaches that search through training data for empirical relationships tend to overfit the data, meaning that they can identify and exploit apparent relationships in the training data that do not hold in general. When a training set is continuously expanded with new data, then this is incremental learning. == Validation data set == A validation data set is a data set of examples used to tune the hyperparameters (i.e. the architecture) of a model. It is sometimes also called the development set or the "dev set". An example of a hyperparameter for artificial neural networks includes the number of hidden units in each layer. It, as well as the testing set (as mentioned below), should follow the same probability distribution as the training data set. In order to avoid overfitting, when any classification parameter needs to be adjusted, it is necessary to have a validation data set in addition to the training and test data sets. For example, if the most suitable classifier for the problem is sought, the training data set is used to train the different candidate classifiers, the validation data set is used to compare their performances and decide which one to take and, finally, the test data set is used to obtain the performance characteristics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F-measure, and so on. The validation data set functions as a hybrid: it is training data used for testing, but neither as part of the low-level training nor as part of the final testing. The basic process of using a validation data set for model selection (as part of training data set, validation data set, and test data set) is: Since our goal is to find the network having the best performance on new data, the simplest approach to the comparison of different networks is to evaluate the error function using data which is independent of that used for training. Various networks are trained by minimization of an appropriate error function defined with respect to a training data set. The performance of the networks is then compared by evaluating the error function using an independent validation set, and the network having the smallest error with respect to the validation set is selected. This approach is called the hold out method. Since this procedure can itself lead to some overfitting to the validation set, the performance of the selected network should be confirmed by measuring its performance on a third independent set of data called a test set. An application of this process is in early stopping, where the candidate models are successive iterations of the same network, and training stops when the error on the validation set grows, choosing the previous model (the one with minimum error). == Test data set == A test data set is a data set that is independent of the training data set, but that follows the same probability distribution as the training data set. A test set is therefore a set of examples used only to assess the performance (i.e. generalization) of a specified classifier on unseen data. To do this, the model is used to predict classifications of examples in the test set. Those predictions are compared to the examples' true classifications to assess the model's accuracy. If a model fit to the training and validation data set also fits the test data set well, minimal overfitting has taken place (see figure below). A better fitting of the training or validation data sets as opposed to the test data set usually points to overfitting. In the scenario where a data set has a low number of samples, it is usually partitioned into a training set and a validation data set, where the model is trained on the training set and refined using the validation set to improve accuracy, but this approach will lead to overfitting. The holdout method can also be employed, where the test set is used at the end, after training on the training set. Other techniques, such as cross-validation and bootstrapping, are used on small data sets. The bootstrap method generates numerous simulated data sets of the same size by randomly sampling with replacement from the original data, allowing the random data points to serve as test sets for evaluating model performance. Cross-validation splits the data set into multiple folds, with a single sub-fold used as test data; the model is trained on the remaining folds, and all folds are cross-validated (with results averaged and models consolidated) to estimate final model performance. Note that some sources advise against using a single split, as it can lead to overfitting as well as biased model performance estimates. For this reason, data sets are split into three partitions: training, validation and test data sets. The standard machine learning practice is to train on the training set and tune hyperparameters using the validation set, where the validation process selects the model with the lowest validation loss, which is then tested on the test data set (normally held out) to assess the final model. The holdout method for the test set reduces computation by avoiding using the test set after each epoch. The test data set should never be used for validating the training model or fine-tuning hyperparameters, as it provides an accurate and honest evaluation of the model's final performance on unseen dat

  Read more →
• 

  Equalized odds

  Equalized odds, also referred to as conditional procedure accuracy equality and disparate mistreatment, is a measure of fairness in machine learning. A classifier satisfies this definition if the subjects in the protected and unprotected groups have equal true positive rate and equal false positive rate, satisfying the formula: P ( R = + | Y = y , A = a ) = P ( R = + | Y = y , A = b ) y ∈ { + , − } ∀ a , b ∈ A {\displaystyle P(R=+|Y=y,A=a)=P(R=+|Y=y,A=b)\quad y\in \{+,-\}\quad \forall a,b\in A} For example, A {\displaystyle A} could be gender, race, or any other characteristics that we want to be free of bias, while Y {\displaystyle Y} would be whether the person is qualified for the degree, and the output R {\displaystyle R} would be the school's decision whether to offer the person to study for the degree. In this context, higher university enrollment rates of African Americans compared to whites with similar test scores might be necessary to fulfill the condition of equalized odds, if the "base rate" of Y {\displaystyle Y} differs between the groups. The concept was originally defined for binary-valued Y {\displaystyle Y} . In 2017, Woodworth et al. generalized the concept further for multiple classes.

  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 →
• 

  Perceptron

  In machine learning, the perceptron is an algorithm for supervised learning of binary classifiers. A binary classifier is a function that can decide whether or not an input, represented by a vector of numbers, belongs to some specific class. It is a type of linear classifier, i.e. a classification algorithm that makes its predictions based on a linear predictor function combining a set of weights with the feature vector. == History == The artificial neuron and artificial neural network were invented in 1943 by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts in their seminal paper "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity". In 1957, Frank Rosenblatt was at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. He simulated the perceptron on an IBM 704. Later, he obtained funding by the Information Systems Branch of the United States Office of Naval Research and the Rome Air Development Center, to build a custom-made computer, the Mark I Perceptron. It was first publicly demonstrated on 23 June 1960. The machine was "part of a previously secret four-year NPIC [the US' National Photographic Interpretation Center] effort from 1963 through 1966 to develop this algorithm into a useful tool for photo-interpreters". Rosenblatt described the details of the perceptron in a 1958 paper. His organization of a perceptron is constructed of three kinds of cells ("units"): S, A, R, which stand for "sensory", "association" and "response". He presented at the first international symposium on AI, Mechanisation of Thought Processes, which took place in 1958 November. Rosenblatt's project was funded under Contract Nonr-401(40) "Cognitive Systems Research Program", which lasted from 1959 to 1970, and Contract Nonr-2381(00) "Project PARA" ("PARA" means "Perceiving and Recognition Automata"), which lasted from 1957 to 1963. In 1959, the Institute for Defense Analysis awarded his group a $10,000 contract. By September 1961, the ONR awarded further $153,000 worth of contracts, with $108,000 committed for 1962. The ONR research manager, Marvin Denicoff, stated that ONR, instead of ARPA, funded the Perceptron project, because the project was unlikely to produce technological results in the near or medium term. Funding from ARPA go up to the order of millions dollars, while from ONR are on the order of 10,000 dollars. Meanwhile, the head of IPTO at ARPA, J.C.R. Licklider, was interested in 'self-organizing', 'adaptive' and other biologically-inspired methods in the 1950s; but by the mid-1960s he was openly critical of these, including the perceptron. Instead he strongly favored the logical AI approach of Simon and Newell. === Mark I Perceptron machine === The perceptron was intended to be a machine, rather than a program, and while its first implementation was in software for the IBM 704, it was subsequently implemented in custom-built hardware as the Mark I Perceptron with the project name "Project PARA", designed for image recognition. The machine is currently in Smithsonian National Museum of American History. The Mark I Perceptron had three layers. One version was implemented as follows: An array of 400 photocells arranged in a 20x20 grid, named "sensory units" (S-units), or "input retina". Each S-unit can connect to up to 40 A-units. A hidden layer of 512 perceptrons, named "association units" (A-units). An output layer of eight perceptrons, named "response units" (R-units). Rosenblatt called this three-layered perceptron network the alpha-perceptron, to distinguish it from other perceptron models he experimented with. The S-units are connected to the A-units randomly (according to a table of random numbers) via a plugboard (see photo), to "eliminate any particular intentional bias in the perceptron". The connection weights are fixed, not learned. Rosenblatt was adamant about the random connections, as he believed the retina was randomly connected to the visual cortex, and he wanted his perceptron machine to resemble human visual perception. The A-units are connected to the R-units, with adjustable weights encoded in potentiometers, and weight updates during learning were performed by electric motors.The hardware details are in an operators' manual. In a 1958 press conference organized by the US Navy, Rosenblatt made statements about the perceptron that caused a heated controversy among the fledgling AI community; based on Rosenblatt's statements, The New York Times reported the perceptron to be "the embryo of an electronic computer that [the Navy] expects will be able to walk, talk, see, write, reproduce itself and be conscious of its existence." The Photo Division of Central Intelligence Agency, from 1960 to 1964, studied the use of Mark I Perceptron machine for recognizing militarily interesting silhouetted targets (such as planes and ships) in aerial photos. === Principles of Neurodynamics (1962) === Rosenblatt described his experiments with many variants of the Perceptron machine in a book Principles of Neurodynamics (1962). The book is a published version of the 1961 report. Among the variants are: "cross-coupling" (connections between units within the same layer) with possibly closed loops, "back-coupling" (connections from units in a later layer to units in a previous layer), four-layer perceptrons where the last two layers have adjustable weights (and thus a proper multilayer perceptron), incorporating time-delays to perceptron units, to allow for processing sequential data, analyzing audio (instead of images). The machine was shipped from Cornell to Smithsonian in 1967, under a government transfer administered by the Office of Naval Research. === Perceptrons (1969) === Although the perceptron initially seemed promising, it was quickly proved that perceptrons could not be trained to recognise many classes of patterns. This caused the field of neural network research to stagnate for many years, before it was recognised that a feedforward neural network with two or more layers (also called a multilayer perceptron) had greater processing power than perceptrons with one layer (also called a single-layer perceptron). Single-layer perceptrons are only capable of learning linearly separable patterns. For a classification task with some step activation function, a single node will have a single line dividing the data points forming the patterns. More nodes can create more dividing lines, but those lines must somehow be combined to form more complex classifications. A second layer of perceptrons, or even linear nodes, are sufficient to solve many otherwise non-separable problems. In 1969, a famous book entitled Perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert showed that it was impossible for these classes of network to learn an XOR function. It is often incorrectly believed that they also conjectured that a similar result would hold for a multi-layer perceptron network. However, this is not true, as both Minsky and Papert already knew that multi-layer perceptrons were capable of producing an XOR function. (See the page on Perceptrons (book) for more information.) Nevertheless, the often-miscited Minsky and Papert text caused a significant decline in interest and funding of neural network research. It took ten more years until neural network research experienced a resurgence in the 1980s. This text was reprinted in 1987 as "Perceptrons - Expanded Edition" where some errors in the original text are shown and corrected. === Subsequent work === Rosenblatt continued working on perceptrons despite diminishing funding. The last attempt was Tobermory, built between 1961 and 1967, built for speech recognition. It occupied an entire room. It had 4 layers with 12,000 weights implemented by toroidal magnetic cores. By the time of its completion, simulation on digital computers had become faster than purpose-built perceptron machines. He died in a boating accident in 1971. A simulation program for neural networks was written for IBM 7090/7094, and was used to study various pattern recognition applications, such as character recognition, particle tracks in bubble-chamber photographs; phoneme, isolated word, and continuous speech recognition; speaker verification; and center-of-attention mechanisms for image processing. The kernel perceptron algorithm was already introduced in 1964 by Aizerman et al. Margin bounds guarantees were given for the Perceptron algorithm in the general non-separable case first by Freund and Schapire (1998), and more recently by Mohri and Rostamizadeh (2013) who extend previous results and give new and more favorable L1 bounds. The perceptron is a simplified model of a biological neuron. While the complexity of biological neuron models is often required to fully understand neural behavior, research suggests a perceptron-like linear model can produce some behavior seen in real neurons. The solution spaces of decision boundaries for all binary functions and learning behaviors are studied in. == Definition == In the modern sense, the perceptron is an algori

  Read more →
• 

  Premature convergence

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

  Read more →
• 

  Comparison of raster graphics editors

  Raster graphics editors can be compared by many variables, including availability. == List == == General information == Basic general information about the editor: creator, company, license, etc. == Operating system support == The operating systems on which the editors can run natively, that is, without emulation, virtual machines or compatibility layers. In other words, the software must be specifically coded for the operation system; for example, Adobe Photoshop for Windows running on Linux with Wine does not fit. == Features == == Color spaces == == File support ==

  Read more →
• 

  Correlation clustering

  Clustering is the problem of partitioning data points into groups based on similarity or dissimilarity. Correlation clustering is a clustering framework in which a set of objects is partitioned into clusters based on pairwise similarity and dissimilarity information, without requiring the number of clusters to be specified in advance. == Description of the problem == In machine learning, correlation clustering (also known as cluster editing) considers settings in which pairwise similarity or dissimilarity relationships between objects are known. A standard formulation models the input as an unweighted complete graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} , where each edge is labeled either + {\displaystyle +} or − {\displaystyle -} (that is, the graph is a signed graph), indicating whether the corresponding endpoints are similar or dissimilar. The goal is to find a clustering (that is, a partition of V {\displaystyle V} ) that either maximizes the number of agreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster and negative edges whose endpoints lie in different clusters—or minimizes the number of disagreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints are separated and negative edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster. Unlike other clustering methods such as k-means, correlation clustering does not require choosing the number of clusters k {\displaystyle k} in advance. It is not always possible to find a clustering with zero disagreements. For example, consider a triangle graph containing two positive edges and one negative edge. In this case, every clustering incurs at least one disagreement. Such configurations are referred to in the literature as bad triangles. From a computational perspective, optimizing the correlation clustering objective is challenging. The (decision version of the) problem is NP-complete. A large body of subsequent work has developed approximation algorithms for correlation clustering under various assumptions, including complete or general graphs and unweighted or weighted graphs, for both minimization and maximization objectives. This problem is considered one of the fundamental combinatorial optimization problems, and many algorithmic techniques have been developed to address it. The problem has also been studied extensively across multiple disciplines. A comprehensive literature review of early correlation clustering research is provided by Wahid and Hassini. == Formal Definitions == Let G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} be a graph with nodes V {\displaystyle V} and edges E {\displaystyle E} . A clustering of G {\displaystyle G} is a partition of its node set Π = { π 1 , … , π k } {\displaystyle \Pi =\{\pi _{1},\dots ,\pi _{k}\}} with V = π 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ π k {\displaystyle V=\pi _{1}\cup \dots \cup \pi _{k}} and π i ∩ π j = ∅ {\displaystyle \pi _{i}\cap \pi _{j}=\emptyset } for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} . For a given clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } , let δ ( Π ) = { { u , v } ∈ E ∣ { u , v } ⊈ π ∀ π ∈ Π } {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )=\{\{u,v\}\in E\mid \{u,v\}\not \subseteq \pi \;\forall \pi \in \Pi \}} denote the subset of edges of G {\displaystyle G} whose endpoints are in different subsets of the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Now, let w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} be a function that assigns a non-negative weight to each edge of the graph and let E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} be a partition of the edges into attractive ( E + {\displaystyle E^{+}} ) and repulsive ( E − {\displaystyle E^{-}} ) edges; that is, the edges are signed. The minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem is the following optimization problem: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∩ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∖ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that disagree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Similarly to the minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem, the maximum agreement correlation clustering problem is defined as maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∖ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∩ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that agree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Instead of formulating the correlation clustering problem in terms of non-negative edge weights and a partition of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges the problem is also formulated in terms of positive and negative edge costs without partitioning the set of edges explicitly. For given weights w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} and a given partition E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges, the edge costs can be defined by c e = { w e if e ∈ E + − w e if e ∈ E − {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}c_{e}={\begin{cases}\;\;w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{+}\\-w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{-}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} for all e ∈ E {\displaystyle e\in E} . An edge whose endpoints are in different clusters is said to be cut. The set δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )} of all edges that are cut is often called a multicut of G {\displaystyle G} . The minimum cost multicut problem is the problem of finding a clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } of G {\displaystyle G} such that the sum of the costs of the edges whose endpoints are in different clusters is minimal: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Similar to the minimum cost multicut problem, coalition structure generation in weighted graph games is the problem of finding a clustering such that the sum of the costs of the edges that are not cut is maximal: maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E ∖ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E\setminus \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} This formulation is also known as the clique partitioning problem. It can be shown that all four problems that are formulated above are equivalent. This means that a clustering that is optimal with respect to any of the four objectives is optimal for all of the four objectives. == Algorithms == If the graph admits a clustering with zero disagreements, then deleting all negative edges and computing the connected components of the remaining graph yields an optimal clustering. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a clustering was given by Davis: no cycle in the graph may contain exactly one negative edge. Bansal et al. discuss the NP-completeness proof and also present both a constant factor approximation algorithm and polynomial-time approximation scheme to find the clusters in this setting. Ailon et al. propose a randomized 3-approximation algorithm for the same problem. CC-Pivot(G=(V,E+,E−)) Pick random pivot i ∈ V Set C = { i } {\displaystyle C=\{i\}} , V'=Ø For all j ∈ V, j ≠ i; If (i,j) ∈ E+ then Add j to C Else (If (i,j) ∈ E−) Add j to V' Let G' be the subgraph induced by V' Return clustering C,CC-Pivot(G') The authors show that the above algorithm is a 3-approximation algorithm for correlation clustering. The best polynomial-time approximation algorithm known at the moment for this problem achieves a ~2.06 approximation by rounding a linear program, as shown by Chawla, Makarychev, Schramm, and Yaroslavtsev. Karpinski and Schudy proved existence of a polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) for that problem on complete graphs and fixed number of clusters. == Optimal number of clusters == In 2011, it was shown by Bagon and Galun that the optimization of the correlation clustering functional is closely related to well known discrete optimization methods. In their work they proposed a probabilistic analysis of the underlying implicit model that allows the correlation clustering functional to estimate the

  Read more →
• 

  Pruning (artificial neural network)

  In deep learning, pruning is the practice of removing parameters from an existing artificial neural network. The goal of this process is to reduce the size (parameter count) of the neural network (and therefore the computational resources required to run it) whilst maintaining accuracy. This can be compared to the biological process of synaptic pruning which takes place in mammalian brains during development. == Node (neuron) pruning == A basic algorithm for pruning is as follows: Evaluate the importance of each neuron. Rank the neurons according to their importance (assuming there is a clearly defined measure for "importance"). Remove the least important neuron. Check a termination condition (to be determined by the user) to see whether to continue pruning. == Edge (weight) pruning == Most work on neural network pruning does not remove full neurons or layers (structured pruning). Instead, it focuses on removing the most insignificant weights (unstructured pruning), namely, setting their values to zero. This can either be done globally by comparing weights from all layers in the network or locally by comparing weights in each layer separately. Different metrics can be used to measure the importance of each weight. Weight magnitude as well as combinations of weight and gradient information are commonly used metrics. Early work suggested also to change the values of non-pruned weights. == When to prune the neural network? == Pruning can be applied at three different stages: before training, during training, or after training. When pruning is performed during or after training, additional fine-tuning epochs are typically required. Each approach involves different trade-offs between accuracy and computational cost.

  Read more →