AI Driven Spreadsheet

AI Driven Spreadsheet — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  AI alignment

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), alignment aims to steer AI systems toward a person's or group's intended goals, preferences, or ethical principles. An AI system is considered aligned if it advances the intended objectives. A misaligned AI system pursues unintended objectives. It is often difficult for AI designers to specify the full range of desired and undesired behaviors. Therefore, the designers often use simpler proxy goals, such as gaining human approval. But proxy goals can overlook necessary constraints or reward the AI system for merely appearing aligned. AI systems may also find loopholes that allow them to accomplish their proxy goals efficiently but in unintended, sometimes harmful, ways (reward hacking). Advanced AI systems may develop unwanted instrumental strategies, such as seeking power or self-preservation because such strategies help them achieve their assigned final goals. Furthermore, they might develop undesirable emergent goals that could be hard to detect before the system is deployed and encounters new situations and data distributions. Empirical research showed in 2024 that advanced large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI o1 or Claude 3 sometimes engage in strategic deception to achieve their goals or prevent them from being changed. Some of these issues affect existing commercial systems such as LLMs, robots, autonomous vehicles, and social media recommendation engines. Some AI researchers argue that more capable future systems will be more severely affected because these problems partially result from high capabilities. Many prominent AI researchers and AI company leaders have argued or asserted that AI is approaching human-like (AGI) and superhuman cognitive capabilities (ASI), and could endanger human civilization if misaligned. These include "AI godfathers" Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio and the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind. These risks remain debated. AI alignment is a subfield of AI safety, the study of how to build safe AI systems. Other subfields of AI safety include robustness, monitoring, and capability control. Research challenges in alignment include instilling complex values in AI, developing honest AI, scalable oversight, auditing and interpreting AI models, and preventing emergent AI behaviors like power-seeking. Alignment research has connections to interpretability research, (adversarial) robustness, anomaly detection, calibrated uncertainty, formal verification, preference learning, safety-critical engineering, game theory, algorithmic fairness, and social sciences. == Objectives in AI == Programmers provide an AI system such as AlphaZero with an "objective function", in which they intend to encapsulate the goal(s) the AI is configured to accomplish. Such a system later populates a (possibly implicit) internal "model" of its environment. This model encapsulates all the agent's beliefs about the world. The AI then creates and executes whatever plan is calculated to maximize the value of its objective function. For example, when AlphaZero is trained on chess, it has a simple objective function of "+1 if AlphaZero wins, −1 if AlphaZero loses". During the game, AlphaZero attempts to execute whatever sequence of moves it judges most likely to attain the maximum value of +1. Similarly, a reinforcement learning system can have a "reward function" that allows the programmers to shape the AI's desired behavior. An evolutionary algorithm's behavior is shaped by a "fitness function". == Alignment problem == In 1960, AI pioneer Norbert Wiener described the AI alignment problem as follows: If we use, to achieve our purposes, a mechanical agency with whose operation we cannot interfere effectively [...] we had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire. AI alignment refers to ensuring that an AI system's objectives match some target. The target is variously defined as the goals of the system's designers or users, widely shared values, objective ethical standards, legal requirements, or the intentions its designers would have if they were more informed and enlightened. In democratic AI alignment, the target is the values and preferences of median voters, which increases political legitimacy. AI alignment is an open problem for modern AI systems and is a research field within AI. Aligning AI involves two main challenges: carefully specifying the purpose of the system (outer alignment) and ensuring that the system adopts the specification robustly (inner alignment). Researchers also attempt to create AI models that have robust alignment, sticking to safety constraints even when users adversarially try to bypass them. === Specification gaming and side effects === To specify an AI system's purpose, AI designers typically provide an objective function, examples, or feedback to the system. But designers are often unable to completely specify all important values and constraints, so they resort to easy-to-specify proxy goals such as maximizing the approval of human overseers, who are fallible. As a result, AI systems can find loopholes that help them accomplish the specified objective efficiently but in unintended, possibly harmful ways. This tendency is known as specification gaming or reward hacking, and is an instance of Goodhart's law. As AI systems become more capable, they are often able to game their specifications more effectively. Specification gaming has been observed in numerous AI systems. OpenAI GPT models for programming—including in real-world cases—have been found to explicitly plan hacking the tests used to evaluate them to falsely appear successful (e.g., explicitly stating "let's hack"). When the company penalized this, many models learned to obfuscate their plans while continuing to hack the tests. Another system was trained to finish a simulated boat race by rewarding the system for hitting targets along the track, but the system achieved more reward by looping and crashing into the same targets indefinitely. A 2025 Palisade Research study found that when tasked to win at chess against a stronger opponent, some reasoning LLMs attempted to hack the game system, for example by modifying or entirely deleting their opponent. Some alignment researchers aim to help humans detect specification gaming and steer AI systems toward carefully specified objectives that are safe and useful to pursue. When a misaligned AI system is deployed, it can have consequential side effects. Social media platforms have been known to optimize their recommendation algorithms for click-through rates, causing user addiction on a global scale. Stanford researchers say that such recommender systems are misaligned with their users because they "optimize simple engagement metrics rather than a harder-to-measure combination of societal and consumer well-being". Explaining such side effects, Berkeley computer scientist Stuart J. Russell said that the omission of implicit constraints can cause harm: "A system [...] will often set [...] unconstrained variables to extreme values; if one of those unconstrained variables is actually something we care about, the solution found may be highly undesirable. This is essentially the old story of the genie in the lamp, or the sorcerer's apprentice, or King Midas: you get exactly what you ask for, not what you want." Some researchers suggest that AI designers specify their desired goals by listing forbidden actions or by formalizing ethical rules (as with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics). But Russell and Norvig argue that this approach overlooks the complexity of human values: "It is certainly very hard, and perhaps impossible, for mere humans to anticipate and rule out in advance all the disastrous ways the machine could choose to achieve a specified objective." Additionally, even if an AI system fully understands human intentions, it may still disregard them, because following human intentions may not be its objective (unless it is already fully aligned). === Pressure to deploy unsafe systems === Commercial organizations sometimes have incentives to take shortcuts on safety and to deploy misaligned or unsafe AI systems. For example, social media recommender systems have been profitable despite creating unwanted addiction and polarization. Competitive pressure can also lead to a race to the bottom on AI safety standards. For example, OpenAI has been sued for releasing a ChatGPT version that encouraged suicide for some unstable users, a behavior the company had overlooked amid a rushed product release. Similarly, in 2018, a self-driving car killed a pedestrian (Elaine Herzberg) after engineers disabled the emergency braking system because it was oversensitive and slowed development. === Risks from advanced misaligned AI === Some researchers are interested in aligning increasingly advanced AI systems, as progress in AI development is rapid, and industry and governments are trying to build advan

  Read more →
• 

  ARKA descriptors in QSAR

  In computational chemistry and cheminformatics, ARKA descriptors in QSAR are a class of molecular descriptors used in quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling (or related approaches such as QSPR and QSTR), a computational method for predicting the biological activity or toxicity of chemical compounds based on their molecular structure. Molecular descriptors are numerical values that summarize information about a molecule's structure, topology, geometry, or physicochemical properties in a form suitable for machine learning or statistical modeling. ARKA (Arithmetic Residuals in K-Groups Analysis) descriptors differ from traditional descriptors by encoding atomic-level information through recursive autoregression techniques, which aim to capture subtle structural patterns and improve predictive accuracy. They are designed to be both interpretable and well-suited to modeling nonlinear relationships in QSAR studies. == Comparisons == While QSAR is essentially a similarity-based approach, the occurrence of activity/property cliffs may greatly reduce the predictive accuracy of the developed models. The novel Arithmetic Residuals in K-groups Analysis (ARKA) approach is a supervised dimensionality reduction technique developed by the DTC Laboratory, Jadavpur University that can easily identify activity cliffs in a data set. Activity cliffs are similar in their structures but differ considerably in their activity. The basic idea of the ARKA descriptors is to group the conventional QSAR descriptors based on a predefined criterion and then assign weightage to each descriptor in each group. ARKA descriptors have also been used to develop classification-based and regression-based QSAR models with acceptable quality statistics. The ARKA descriptors have been used for the identification of activity cliffs in QSAR studies and/or model development by multiple researchers. A tutorial presentation on the ARKA descriptors is available. Recently a multi-class ARKA framework has been proposed for improved q-RASAR model generation.

  Read more →
• 

  Neural Networks (journal)

  Neural Networks is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal and an official journal of the International Neural Network Society, European Neural Network Society, and Japanese Neural Network Society. == History == The journal was established in 1988 and is published by Elsevier. It covers all aspects of research on artificial neural networks. The founding editor-in-chief was Stephen Grossberg (Boston University). The current editors-in-chief are DeLiang Wang (Ohio State University) and Taro Toyoizumi (RIKEN Center for Brain Science). == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 7.8.

  Read more →
• 

  Multiple kernel learning

  Multiple kernel learning refers to a set of machine learning methods that use a predefined set of kernels and learn an optimal linear or non-linear combination of kernels as part of the algorithm. Reasons to use multiple kernel learning include a) the ability to select for an optimal kernel and parameters from a larger set of kernels, reducing bias due to kernel selection while allowing for more automated machine learning methods, and b) combining data from different sources (e.g. sound and images from a video) that have different notions of similarity and thus require different kernels. Instead of creating a new kernel, multiple kernel algorithms can be used to combine kernels already established for each individual data source. Multiple kernel learning approaches have been used in many applications, such as event recognition in video, object recognition in images, and biomedical data fusion. == Algorithms == Multiple kernel learning algorithms have been developed for supervised, semi-supervised, as well as unsupervised learning. Most work has been done on the supervised learning case with linear combinations of kernels, however, many algorithms have been developed. The basic idea behind multiple kernel learning algorithms is to add an extra parameter to the minimization problem of the learning algorithm. As an example, consider the case of supervised learning of a linear combination of a set of n {\displaystyle n} kernels K {\displaystyle K} . We introduce a new kernel K ′ = ∑ i = 1 n β i K i {\displaystyle K'=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\beta _{i}K_{i}} , where β {\displaystyle \beta } is a vector of coefficients for each kernel. Because the kernels are additive (due to properties of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces), this new function is still a kernel. For a set of data X {\displaystyle X} with labels Y {\displaystyle Y} , the minimization problem can then be written as min β , c E ( Y , K ′ c ) + R ( K , c ) {\displaystyle \min _{\beta ,c}\mathrm {E} (Y,K'c)+R(K,c)} where E {\displaystyle \mathrm {E} } is an error function and R {\displaystyle R} is a regularization term. E {\displaystyle \mathrm {E} } is typically the square loss function (Tikhonov regularization) or the hinge loss function (for SVM algorithms), and R {\displaystyle R} is usually an ℓ n {\displaystyle \ell _{n}} norm or some combination of the norms (i.e. elastic net regularization). This optimization problem can then be solved by standard optimization methods. Adaptations of existing techniques such as the Sequential Minimal Optimization have also been developed for multiple kernel SVM-based methods. === Supervised learning === For supervised learning, there are many other algorithms that use different methods to learn the form of the kernel. The following categorization has been proposed by Gonen and Alpaydın (2011) ==== Fixed rules approaches ==== Fixed rules approaches such as the linear combination algorithm described above use rules to set the combination of the kernels. These do not require parameterization and use rules like summation and multiplication to combine the kernels. The weighting is learned in the algorithm. Other examples of fixed rules include pairwise kernels, which are of the form k ( ( x 1 i , x 1 j ) , ( x 2 i , x 2 j ) ) = k ( x 1 i , x 2 i ) k ( x 1 j , x 2 j ) + k ( x 1 i , x 2 j ) k ( x 1 j , x 2 i ) {\displaystyle k((x_{1i},x_{1j}),(x_{2i},x_{2j}))=k(x_{1i},x_{2i})k(x_{1j},x_{2j})+k(x_{1i},x_{2j})k(x_{1j},x_{2i})} . These pairwise approaches have been used in predicting protein-protein interactions. ==== Heuristic approaches ==== These algorithms use a combination function that is parameterized. The parameters are generally defined for each individual kernel based on single-kernel performance or some computation from the kernel matrix. Examples of these include the kernel from Tenabe et al. (2008). Letting π m {\displaystyle \pi _{m}} be the accuracy obtained using only K m {\displaystyle K_{m}} , and letting δ {\displaystyle \delta } be a threshold less than the minimum of the single-kernel accuracies, we can define β m = π m − δ ∑ h = 1 n ( π h − δ ) {\displaystyle \beta _{m}={\frac {\pi _{m}-\delta }{\sum _{h=1}^{n}(\pi _{h}-\delta )}}} Other approaches use a definition of kernel similarity, such as A ( K 1 , K 2 ) = ⟨ K 1 , K 2 ⟩ ⟨ K 1 , K 1 ⟩ ⟨ K 2 , K 2 ⟩ {\displaystyle A(K_{1},K_{2})={\frac {\langle K_{1},K_{2}\rangle }{\sqrt {\langle K_{1},K_{1}\rangle \langle K_{2},K_{2}\rangle }}}} Using this measure, Qui and Lane (2009) used the following heuristic to define β m = A ( K m , Y Y T ) ∑ h = 1 n A ( K h , Y Y T ) {\displaystyle \beta _{m}={\frac {A(K_{m},YY^{T})}{\sum _{h=1}^{n}A(K_{h},YY^{T})}}} ==== Optimization approaches ==== These approaches solve an optimization problem to determine parameters for the kernel combination function. This has been done with similarity measures and structural risk minimization approaches. For similarity measures such as the one defined above, the problem can be formulated as follows: max β , tr ⁡ ( K t r a ′ ) = 1 , K ′ ≥ 0 A ( K t r a ′ , Y Y T ) . {\displaystyle \max _{\beta ,\operatorname {tr} (K'_{tra})=1,K'\geq 0}A(K'_{tra},YY^{T}).} where K t r a ′ {\displaystyle K'_{tra}} is the kernel of the training set. Structural risk minimization approaches that have been used include linear approaches, such as that used by Lanckriet et al. (2002). We can define the implausibility of a kernel ω ( K ) {\displaystyle \omega (K)} to be the value of the objective function after solving a canonical SVM problem. We can then solve the following minimization problem: min tr ⁡ ( K t r a ′ ) = c ω ( K t r a ′ ) {\displaystyle \min _{\operatorname {tr} (K'_{tra})=c}\omega (K'_{tra})} where c {\displaystyle c} is a positive constant. Many other variations exist on the same idea, with different methods of refining and solving the problem, e.g. with nonnegative weights for individual kernels and using non-linear combinations of kernels. ==== Bayesian approaches ==== Bayesian approaches put priors on the kernel parameters and learn the parameter values from the priors and the base algorithm. For example, the decision function can be written as f ( x ) = ∑ i = 0 n α i ∑ m = 1 p η m K m ( x i m , x m ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{i=0}^{n}\alpha _{i}\sum _{m=1}^{p}\eta _{m}K_{m}(x_{i}^{m},x^{m})} η {\displaystyle \eta } can be modeled with a Dirichlet prior and α {\displaystyle \alpha } can be modeled with a zero-mean Gaussian and an inverse gamma variance prior. This model is then optimized using a customized multinomial probit approach with a Gibbs sampler. These methods have been used successfully in applications such as protein fold recognition and protein homology problems ==== Boosting approaches ==== Boosting approaches add new kernels iteratively until some stopping criteria that is a function of performance is reached. An example of this is the MARK model developed by Bennett et al. (2002) f ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N ∑ m = 1 P α i m K m ( x i m , x m ) + b {\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\sum _{m=1}^{P}\alpha _{i}^{m}K_{m}(x_{i}^{m},x^{m})+b} The parameters α i m {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}^{m}} and b {\displaystyle b} are learned by gradient descent on a coordinate basis. In this way, each iteration of the descent algorithm identifies the best kernel column to choose at each particular iteration and adds that to the combined kernel. The model is then rerun to generate the optimal weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} and b {\displaystyle b} . === Semisupervised learning === Semisupervised learning approaches to multiple kernel learning are similar to other extensions of supervised learning approaches. An inductive procedure has been developed that uses a log-likelihood empirical loss and group LASSO regularization with conditional expectation consensus on unlabeled data for image categorization. We can define the problem as follows. Let L = ( x i , y i ) {\displaystyle L={(x_{i},y_{i})}} be the labeled data, and let U = x i {\displaystyle U={x_{i}}} be the set of unlabeled data. Then, we can write the decision function as follows. f ( x ) = α 0 + ∑ i = 1 | L | α i K i ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\alpha _{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{|L|}\alpha _{i}K_{i}(x)} The problem can be written as min f L ( f ) + λ R ( f ) + γ Θ ( f ) {\displaystyle \min _{f}L(f)+\lambda R(f)+\gamma \Theta (f)} where L {\displaystyle L} is the loss function (weighted negative log-likelihood in this case), R {\displaystyle R} is the regularization parameter (Group LASSO in this case), and Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } is the conditional expectation consensus (CEC) penalty on unlabeled data. The CEC penalty is defined as follows. Let the marginal kernel density for all the data be g m π ( x ) = ⟨ ϕ m π , ψ m ( x ) ⟩ {\displaystyle g_{m}^{\pi }(x)=\langle \phi _{m}^{\pi },\psi _{m}(x)\rangle } where ψ m ( x ) = [ K m ( x 1 , x ) , … , K m ( x L , x ) ] T {\displaystyle \psi _{m}(x)=[K_{m}(x_{1},x),\ldots ,K_{m}(x_{L},x)]^{T}} (the kernel distance between the labe

  Read more →
• 

  Conference app

  A conference app, also known as an event app or meeting app, is a mobile app developed to help attendees and meeting planners manage their conference experience. It typically includes conference proceedings and venue information, allowing users to create personalized schedules and engage with other users. A conference app can be a native app or web-based. In recent years, conference apps have gained in popularity as a sustainable solution for event management by reducing paper produced by printed materials. Advanced features often include real-time notifications for updates or changes, integration with virtual meeting platforms for hybrid or fully online events, and analytics tools for organizers to measure attendance and engagement. Additionally, some apps support sponsorship and exhibitor features, enabling businesses to showcase their products or services directly within the app.

  Read more →
• 

  Feature selection

  In machine learning, feature selection is the process of selecting a subset of relevant features (variables, predictors) for use in model construction. Feature selection techniques are used for several reasons: simplification of models to make them easier to interpret, shorter training times, to avoid the curse of dimensionality, improve the compatibility of the data with a certain learning model class, to encode inherent symmetries present in the input space. The central premise when using feature selection is that data sometimes contains features that are redundant or irrelevant, and can thus be removed without incurring much loss of information. Redundancy and irrelevance are two distinct notions, since one relevant feature may be redundant in the presence of another relevant feature with which it is strongly correlated. Feature extraction creates new features from functions of the original features, whereas feature selection finds a subset of the features. Feature selection techniques are often used in domains where there are many features and comparatively few samples (data points). == Introduction == A feature selection algorithm can be seen as the combination of a search technique for proposing new feature subsets, along with an evaluation measure which scores the different feature subsets. The simplest algorithm is to test each possible subset of features finding the one which minimizes the error rate. This is an exhaustive search of the space, and is computationally intractable for all but the smallest of feature sets. The choice of evaluation metric heavily influences the algorithm, and it is these evaluation metrics which distinguish between the three main categories of feature selection algorithms: wrappers, filters and embedded methods. Wrapper methods use a predictive model to score feature subsets. Each new subset is used to train a model, which is tested on a hold-out set. Counting the number of mistakes made on that hold-out set (the error rate of the model) gives the score for that subset. As wrapper methods train a new model for each subset, they are very computationally intensive, but usually provide the best performing feature set for that particular type of model or typical problem. Filter methods use a proxy measure instead of the error rate to score a feature subset. This measure is chosen to be fast to compute, while still capturing the usefulness of the feature set. Common measures include the mutual information, the pointwise mutual information, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Relief-based algorithms, and inter/intra class distance or the scores of significance tests for each class/feature combinations. Filters are usually less computationally intensive than wrappers, but they produce a feature set which is not tuned to a specific type of predictive model. This lack of tuning means a feature set from a filter is more general than the set from a wrapper, usually giving lower prediction performance than a wrapper. However the feature set doesn't contain the assumptions of a prediction model, and so is more useful for exposing the relationships between the features. Many filters provide a feature ranking rather than an explicit best feature subset, and the cut off point in the ranking is chosen via cross-validation. Filter methods have also been used as a preprocessing step for wrapper methods, allowing a wrapper to be used on larger problems. One other popular approach is the Recursive Feature Elimination algorithm, commonly used with Support Vector Machines to repeatedly construct a model and remove features with low weights. Embedded methods are a catch-all group of techniques which perform feature selection as part of the model construction process. The exemplar of this approach is the LASSO method for constructing a linear model, which penalizes the regression coefficients with an L1 penalty, shrinking many of them to zero. Any features which have non-zero regression coefficients are 'selected' by the LASSO algorithm. Improvements to the LASSO include Bolasso which bootstraps samples; Elastic net regularization, which combines the L1 penalty of LASSO with the L2 penalty of ridge regression; and FeaLect which scores all the features based on combinatorial analysis of regression coefficients. AEFS further extends LASSO to nonlinear scenario with autoencoders. These approaches tend to be between filters and wrappers in terms of computational complexity. In traditional regression analysis, the most popular form of feature selection is stepwise regression, which is a wrapper technique. It is a greedy algorithm that adds the best feature (or deletes the worst feature) at each round. The main control issue is deciding when to stop the algorithm. In machine learning, this is typically done by cross-validation. In statistics, some criteria are optimized. This leads to the inherent problem of nesting. More robust methods have been explored, such as branch and bound and piecewise linear network. == Subset selection == Subset selection evaluates a subset of features as a group for suitability. Subset selection algorithms can be broken up into wrappers, filters, and embedded methods. Wrappers use a search algorithm to search through the space of possible features and evaluate each subset by running a model on the subset. Wrappers can be computationally expensive and have a risk of over fitting to the model. Filters are similar to wrappers in the search approach, but instead of evaluating against a model, a simpler filter is evaluated. Embedded techniques are embedded in, and specific to, a model. Many popular search approaches use greedy hill climbing, which iteratively evaluates a candidate subset of features, then modifies the subset and evaluates if the new subset is an improvement over the old. Evaluation of the subsets requires a scoring metric that grades a subset of features. Exhaustive search is generally impractical, so at some implementor (or operator) defined stopping point, the subset of features with the highest score discovered up to that point is selected as the satisfactory feature subset. The stopping criterion varies by algorithm; possible criteria include: a subset score exceeds a threshold, a program's maximum allowed run time has been surpassed, etc. Alternative search-based techniques are based on targeted projection pursuit which finds low-dimensional projections of the data that score highly: the features that have the largest projections in the lower-dimensional space are then selected. Search approaches include: Exhaustive Best first Simulated annealing Genetic algorithm Greedy forward selection Greedy backward elimination Particle swarm optimization Targeted projection pursuit Scatter search Variable neighborhood search Two popular filter metrics for classification problems are correlation and mutual information, although neither are true metrics or 'distance measures' in the mathematical sense, since they fail to obey the triangle inequality and thus do not compute any actual 'distance' – they should rather be regarded as 'scores'. These scores are computed between a candidate feature (or set of features) and the desired output category. There are, however, true metrics that are a simple function of the mutual information; see here. Other available filter metrics include: Class separability Error probability Inter-class distance Probabilistic distance Entropy Consistency-based feature selection Correlation-based feature selection == Optimality criteria == The choice of optimality criteria is difficult as there are multiple objectives in a feature selection task. Many common criteria incorporate a measure of accuracy, penalised by the number of features selected. Examples include Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Mallows's Cp, which have a penalty of 2 for each added feature. AIC is based on information theory, and is effectively derived via the maximum entropy principle. Other criteria are Bayesian information criterion (BIC), which uses a penalty of log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} for each added feature, minimum description length (MDL) which asymptotically uses log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} , Bonferroni / RIC which use 2 log ⁡ p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {p}}}} , maximum dependency feature selection, and a variety of new criteria that are motivated by false discovery rate (FDR), which use something close to 2 log ⁡ p q {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {\frac {p}{q}}}}} . A maximum entropy rate criterion may also be used to select the most relevant subset of features. == Structure learning == Filter feature selection is a specific case of a more general paradigm called structure learning. Feature selection finds the relevant feature set for a specific target variable whereas structure learning finds the relationships between all the variables, usually by expressing these relationships as a graph. The most common structure learning algorithms

  Read more →
• 

  BrownBoost

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

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic time warping

  In time series analysis, dynamic time warping (DTW) is an algorithm for measuring similarity between two temporal sequences, which may vary in speed. For instance, similarities in walking could be detected using DTW, even if one person was walking faster than the other, or if there were accelerations and decelerations during the course of an observation. DTW has been applied to temporal sequences of video, audio, and graphics data — indeed, any data that can be turned into a one-dimensional sequence can be analyzed with DTW. A well-known application has been automatic speech recognition, to cope with different speaking speeds. Other applications include speaker recognition and online signature recognition. It can also be used in partial shape matching applications. In general, DTW is a method that calculates an optimal match between two given sequences (e.g. time series) with certain restriction and rules: Every index from the first sequence must be matched with one or more indices from the other sequence, and vice versa The first index from the first sequence must be matched with the first index from the other sequence (but it does not have to be its only match) The last index from the first sequence must be matched with the last index from the other sequence (but it does not have to be its only match) The mapping of the indices from the first sequence to indices from the other sequence must be monotonically increasing, and vice versa, i.e. if j > i {\displaystyle j>i} are indices from the first sequence, then there must not be two indices l > k {\displaystyle l>k} in the other sequence, such that index i {\displaystyle i} is matched with index l {\displaystyle l} and index j {\displaystyle j} is matched with index k {\displaystyle k} , and vice versa We can plot each match between the sequences 1 : M {\displaystyle 1:M} and 1 : N {\displaystyle 1:N} as a path in a M × N {\displaystyle M\times N} matrix from ( 1 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (1,1)} to ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} , such that each step is one of ( 0 , 1 ) , ( 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (0,1),(1,0),(1,1)} . In this formulation, we see that the number of possible matches is the Delannoy number. The optimal match is denoted by the match that satisfies all the restrictions and the rules and that has the minimal cost, where the cost is computed as the sum of absolute differences, for each matched pair of indices, between their values. The sequences are "warped" non-linearly in the time dimension to determine a measure of their similarity independent of certain non-linear variations in the time dimension. This sequence alignment method is often used in time series classification. Although DTW measures a distance-like quantity between two given sequences, it doesn't guarantee the triangle inequality to hold. In addition to a similarity measure between the two sequences (a so called "warping path" is produced), by warping according to this path the two signals may be aligned in time. The signal with an original set of points X(original), Y(original) is transformed to X(warped), Y(warped). This finds applications in genetic sequence and audio synchronisation. In a related technique sequences of varying speed may be averaged using this technique see the average sequence section. This is conceptually very similar to the Needleman–Wunsch algorithm. == Implementation == This example illustrates the implementation of the dynamic time warping algorithm when the two sequences s and t are strings of discrete symbols. For two symbols x and y, d ( x , y ) {\displaystyle d(x,y)} is a distance between the symbols, e.g., d ( x , y ) = | x − y | {\displaystyle d(x,y)=|x-y|} . int DTWDistance(s: array [1..n], t: array [1..m]) { DTW := array [0..n, 0..m] for i := 0 to n for j := 0 to m DTW[i, j] := infinity DTW[0, 0] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := 1 to m cost := d(s[i], t[j]) DTW[i, j] := cost + minimum(DTW[i-1, j ], // insertion DTW[i , j-1], // deletion DTW[i-1, j-1]) // match return DTW[n, m] } where DTW[i, j] is the distance between s[1:i] and t[1:j] with the best alignment. We sometimes want to add a locality constraint. That is, we require that if s[i] is matched with t[j], then | i − j | {\displaystyle |i-j|} is no larger than w, a window parameter. We can easily modify the above algorithm to add a locality constraint (differences marked). However, the above given modification works only if | n − m | {\displaystyle |n-m|} is no larger than w, i.e. the end point is within the window length from diagonal. In order to make the algorithm work, the window parameter w must be adapted so that | n − m | ≤ w {\displaystyle |n-m|\leq w} (see the line marked with () in the code). int DTWDistance(s: array [1..n], t: array [1..m], w: int) { DTW := array [0..n, 0..m] w := max(w, abs(n-m)) // adapt window size () for i := 0 to n for j:= 0 to m DTW[i, j] := infinity DTW[0, 0] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := max(1, i-w) to min(m, i+w) DTW[i, j] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := max(1, i-w) to min(m, i+w) cost := d(s[i], t[j]) DTW[i, j] := cost + minimum(DTW[i-1, j ], // insertion DTW[i , j-1], // deletion DTW[i-1, j-1]) // match return DTW[n, m] } == Warping properties == The DTW algorithm produces a discrete matching between existing elements of one series to another. In other words, it does not allow time-scaling of segments within the sequence. Other methods allow continuous warping. For example, Correlation Optimized Warping (COW) divides the sequence into uniform segments that are scaled in time using linear interpolation, to produce the best matching warping. The segment scaling causes potential creation of new elements, by time-scaling segments either down or up, and thus produces a more sensitive warping than DTW's discrete matching of raw elements. == Complexity == The time complexity of the DTW algorithm is O ( N M ) {\displaystyle O(NM)} , where N {\displaystyle N} and M {\displaystyle M} are the lengths of the two input sequences. The 50 years old quadratic time bound was broken in 2016: an algorithm due to Gold and Sharir enables computing DTW in O ( N 2 / log ⁡ log ⁡ N ) {\displaystyle O({N^{2}}/\log \log N)} time and space for two input sequences of length N {\displaystyle N} . This algorithm can also be adapted to sequences of different lengths. Despite this improvement, it was shown that a strongly subquadratic running time of the form O ( N 2 − ϵ ) {\displaystyle O(N^{2-\epsilon })} for some ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} cannot exist unless the Strong exponential time hypothesis fails. While the dynamic programming algorithm for DTW requires O ( N M ) {\displaystyle O(NM)} space in a naive implementation, the space consumption can be reduced to O ( min ( N , M ) ) {\displaystyle O(\min(N,M))} using Hirschberg's algorithm. == Fast computation == Fast techniques for computing DTW include PrunedDTW, SparseDTW, FastDTW, and the MultiscaleDTW. A common task, retrieval of similar time series, can be accelerated by using lower bounds such as LB_Keogh, LB_Improved, or LB_Petitjean. However, the Early Abandon and Pruned DTW algorithm reduces the degree of acceleration that lower bounding provides and sometimes renders it ineffective. In a survey, Wang et al. reported slightly better results with the LB_Improved lower bound than the LB_Keogh bound, and found that other techniques were inefficient. Subsequent to this survey, the LB_Enhanced bound was developed that is always tighter than LB_Keogh while also being more efficient to compute. LB_Petitjean is the tightest known lower bound that can be computed in linear time. == Average sequence == Averaging for dynamic time warping is the problem of finding an average sequence for a set of sequences. NLAAF is an exact method to average two sequences using DTW. For more than two sequences, the problem is related to that of multiple alignment and requires heuristics. DBA is currently a reference method to average a set of sequences consistently with DTW. COMASA efficiently randomizes the search for the average sequence, using DBA as a local optimization process. == Supervised learning == A nearest-neighbour classifier can achieve state-of-the-art performance when using dynamic time warping as a distance measure. == Amerced Dynamic Time Warping == Amerced Dynamic Time Warping (ADTW) is a variant of DTW designed to better control DTW's permissiveness in the alignments that it allows. The windows that classical DTW uses to constrain alignments introduce a step function. Any warping of the path is allowed within the window and none beyond it. In contrast, ADTW employs an additive penalty that is incurred each time that the path is warped. Any amount of warping is allowed, but each warping action incurs a direct penalty. ADTW significantly outperforms DTW with windowing when applied as a nearest neighbor classifier on a set of benchmark time series classification tasks. == Alternative approaches == In functional data analysis, time series are regarde

  Read more →
• 

  Feature hashing

  In machine learning, feature hashing, also known as the hashing trick (by analogy to the kernel trick), is a fast and space-efficient way of vectorizing features, i.e. turning arbitrary features into indices in a vector or matrix. It works by applying a hash function to the features and using their hash values as indices directly (after a modulo operation), rather than looking the indices up in an associative array. In addition to its use for encoding non-numeric values, feature hashing can also be used for dimensionality reduction. This trick is often attributed to Weinberger et al. (2009), but there exists a much earlier description of this method published by John Moody in 1989. == Motivation == === Motivating example === In a typical document classification task, the input to the machine learning algorithm (both during learning and classification) is free text. From this, a bag of words (BOW) representation is constructed: the individual tokens are extracted and counted, and each distinct token in the training set defines a feature (independent variable) of each of the documents in both the training and test sets. Machine learning algorithms, however, are typically defined in terms of numerical vectors. Therefore, the bags of words for a set of documents is regarded as a term-document matrix where each row is a single document, and each column is a single feature/word; the entry i, j in such a matrix captures the frequency (or weight) of the j'th term of the vocabulary in document i. (An alternative convention swaps the rows and columns of the matrix, but this difference is immaterial.) Typically, these vectors are extremely sparse—according to Zipf's law. The common approach is to construct, at learning time or prior to that, a dictionary representation of the vocabulary of the training set, and use that to map words to indices. Hash tables and tries are common candidates for dictionary implementation. E.g., the three documents John likes to watch movies. Mary likes movies too. John also likes football. can be converted, using the dictionary to the term-document matrix ( John likes to watch movies Mary too also football 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}{\textrm {John}}&{\textrm {likes}}&{\textrm {to}}&{\textrm {watch}}&{\textrm {movies}}&{\textrm {Mary}}&{\textrm {too}}&{\textrm {also}}&{\textrm {football}}\\1&1&1&1&1&0&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0&1&1&1&0&0\\1&1&0&0&0&0&0&1&1\end{pmatrix}}} (Punctuation was removed, as is usual in document classification and clustering.) The problem with this process is that such dictionaries take up a large amount of storage space and grow in size as the training set grows. On the contrary, if the vocabulary is kept fixed and not increased with a growing training set, an adversary may try to invent new words or misspellings that are not in the stored vocabulary so as to circumvent a machine learned filter. To address this challenge, Yahoo! Research attempted to use feature hashing for their spam filters. Note that the hashing trick isn't limited to text classification and similar tasks at the document level, but can be applied to any problem that involves large (perhaps unbounded) numbers of features. === Mathematical motivation === Mathematically, a token is an element t {\displaystyle t} in a finite (or countably infinite) set T {\displaystyle T} . Suppose we only need to process a finite corpus, then we can put all tokens appearing in the corpus into T {\displaystyle T} , meaning that T {\displaystyle T} is finite. However, suppose we want to process all possible words made of the English letters, then T {\displaystyle T} is countably infinite. Most neural networks can only operate on real vector inputs, so we must construct a "dictionary" function ϕ : T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . When T {\displaystyle T} is finite, of size | T | = m ≤ n {\displaystyle |T|=m\leq n} , then we can use one-hot encoding to map it into R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . First, arbitrarily enumerate T = { t 1 , t 2 , . . , t m } {\displaystyle T=\{t_{1},t_{2},..,t_{m}\}} , then define ϕ ( t i ) = e i {\displaystyle \phi (t_{i})=e_{i}} . In other words, we assign a unique index i {\displaystyle i} to each token, then map the token with index i {\displaystyle i} to the unit basis vector e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} . One-hot encoding is easy to interpret, but it requires one to maintain the arbitrary enumeration of T {\displaystyle T} . Given a token t ∈ T {\displaystyle t\in T} , to compute ϕ ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)} , we must find out the index i {\displaystyle i} of the token t {\displaystyle t} . Thus, to implement ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } efficiently, we need a fast-to-compute bijection h : T → { 1 , . . . , m } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,m\}} , then we have ϕ ( t ) = e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)=e_{h(t)}} . In fact, we can relax the requirement slightly: It suffices to have a fast-to-compute injection h : T → { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,n\}} , then use ϕ ( t ) = e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)=e_{h(t)}} . In practice, there is no simple way to construct an efficient injection h : T → { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,n\}} . However, we do not need a strict injection, but only an approximate injection. That is, when t ≠ t ′ {\displaystyle t\neq t'} , we should probably have h ( t ) ≠ h ( t ′ ) {\displaystyle h(t)\neq h(t')} , so that probably ϕ ( t ) ≠ ϕ ( t ′ ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)\neq \phi (t')} . At this point, we have just specified that h {\displaystyle h} should be a hashing function. Thus we reach the idea of feature hashing. == Algorithms == === Feature hashing (Weinberger et al. 2009) === The basic feature hashing algorithm presented in (Weinberger et al. 2009) is defined as follows. First, one specifies two hash functions: the kernel hash h : T → { 1 , 2 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,2,...,n\}} , and the sign hash ζ : T → { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle \zeta :T\to \{-1,+1\}} . Next, one defines the feature hashing function: ϕ : T → R n , ϕ ( t ) = ζ ( t ) e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n},\quad \phi (t)=\zeta (t)e_{h(t)}} Finally, extend this feature hashing function to strings of tokens by ϕ : T ∗ → R n , ϕ ( t 1 , . . . , t k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ϕ ( t j ) {\displaystyle \phi :T^{}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n},\quad \phi (t_{1},...,t_{k})=\sum _{j=1}^{k}\phi (t_{j})} where T ∗ {\displaystyle T^{}} is the set of all finite strings consisting of tokens in T {\displaystyle T} . Equivalently, ϕ ( t 1 , . . . , t k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ζ ( t j ) e h ( t j ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( ∑ j : h ( t j ) = i ζ ( t j ) ) e i {\displaystyle \phi (t_{1},...,t_{k})=\sum _{j=1}^{k}\zeta (t_{j})e_{h(t_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum _{j:h(t_{j})=i}\zeta (t_{j})\right)e_{i}} ==== Geometric properties ==== We want to say something about the geometric property of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , but T {\displaystyle T} , by itself, is just a set of tokens, we cannot impose a geometric structure on it except the discrete topology, which is generated by the discrete metric. To make it nicer, we lift it to T → R T {\displaystyle T\to \mathbb {R} ^{T}} , and lift ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } from ϕ : T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} to ϕ : R T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :\mathbb {R} ^{T}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} by linear extension: ϕ ( ( x t ) t ∈ T ) = ∑ t ∈ T x t ζ ( t ) e h ( t ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( ∑ t : h ( t ) = i x t ζ ( t ) ) e i {\displaystyle \phi ((x_{t})_{t\in T})=\sum _{t\in T}x_{t}\zeta (t)e_{h(t)}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum _{t:h(t)=i}x_{t}\zeta (t)\right)e_{i}} There is an infinite sum there, which must be handled at once. There are essentially only two ways to handle infinities. One may impose a metric, then take its completion, to allow well-behaved infinite sums, or one may demand that nothing is actually infinite, only potentially so. Here, we go for the potential-infinity way, by restricting R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} to contain only vectors with finite support: ∀ ( x t ) t ∈ T ∈ R T {\displaystyle \forall (x_{t})_{t\in T}\in \mathbb {R} ^{T}} , only finitely many entries of ( x t ) t ∈ T {\displaystyle (x_{t})_{t\in T}} are nonzero. Define an inner product on R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} in the obvious way: ⟨ e t , e t ′ ⟩ = { 1 , if t = t ′ , 0 , else. ⟨ x , x ′ ⟩ = ∑ t , t ′ ∈ T x t x t ′ ⟨ e t , e t ′ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle e_{t},e_{t'}\rangle ={\begin{cases}1,{\text{ if }}t=t',\\0,{\text{ else.}}\end{cases}}\quad \langle x,x'\rangle =\sum _{t,t'\in T}x_{t}x_{t'}\langle e_{t},e_{t'}\rangle } As a side note, if T {\displaystyle T} is infinite, then the inner product space R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} is not complete. Taking its completion would get us to a Hilbert space, which allows well-behaved infinite sums. Now we have an inner product space, with enough structure to describe the geometry of the feature hashing function ϕ : R T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :\ma

  Read more →
• 

  Blockmodeling linked networks

  Blockmodeling linked networks is an approach in blockmodeling in analysing the linked networks. Such approach is based on the generalized multilevel blockmodeling approach. The main objective of this approach is to achieve clustering of the nodes from all involved sets, while at the same time using all available information. At the same time, all one-mode and two-node networks, that are connected, are blockmodeled, which results in obtaining only one clustering, using nodes from each sets. Each cluster ideally contains only nodes from one set, which also allows the modeling of the links among clusters from different sets (through two-mode networks). This approach was introduced by Aleš Žiberna in 2014. Blockmodeling linked networks can be done using: separate analysis: blockmodeling each level separately; conversion approach: converting all one-mode networks to the same level and joining with two-mode networks; a true multilevel approach: one-mode and two-mode networks are blockmodeled at the same time, resulting in one clustering for nodes from each level.

  Read more →
• 

  Vladimir Batagelj

  Vladimir Batagelj (born June 14, 1948 in Idrija, Yugoslavia) is a Slovenian mathematician and an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Ljubljana. He is known for his work in discrete mathematics and combinatorial optimization, particularly analysis of social networks and other large networks (blockmodeling). == Education and career == Vladimir Batagelj completed his Ph.D. at the University of Ljubljana in 1986 under the direction of Tomaž Pisanski. He stayed at the University of Ljubljana as a professor until his retirement, where he was a professor of sociology and statistics, while also being a chair of the Department of Sociology of the Faculty of Social Sciences. As visiting professor, he was taught at the University of Pittsburgh (1990-91) and at the University of Konstanz (2002). He was also a member of editorial boards of two journals: Informatica and Journal of Social Structure. His work has been cited over 11000 times. His book Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek on blockmodeling, coauthored with Wouter de Nooy and Andrej Mrvar, is Batagelj's most cited work and has over 3300 citations. The book was translated into Chinese and Japanese. The revised and expanded third edition has been published by Cambridge University Press. In 1975, 11 years before completing his PhD, Batagelj published a solo paper in Communications of the ACM. Batagelj authored more than 20 textbooks in Slovenian, covering topics like TeX, combinatorics and discrete mathematics. He has also written extensively in the Slovenian popular science journal Presek. Batagelj has advised 9 Ph.D. students. == Pajek == Batagelj is particularly known for his work on Pajek, a freely available software for analysis and visualization of large networks. He began work on Pajek in 1996 with Andrej Mrvar, who was then his PhD student. == Awards and honors == First prizes for contributions (with Andrej Mrvar) to Graph Drawing Contests in years: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2005 / Graph Drawing Hall of Fame. In 2007 the book Generalized blockmodeling was awarded the Harrison White Outstanding Book Award by the Mathematical Sociology Section of American Sociological Association In 2007 he was awarded (together with Anuška Ferligoj) the Simmel Award by INSNA. In 2013, Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar received the INSNA's William D. Richards Software award for their work on Pajek. == Selected bibliography == Vladimir Batagelj, Social Network Analysis, Large-Scale [1]. in R.A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer 2009: 8245–8265. Vladimir Batagelj, Complex Networks, Visualization of [2]. in R.A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer 2009: 1253–1268. Wouter de Nooy, Andrej Mrvar, Vladimir Batagelj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press 2005 (ISBN 0-521-60262-9). ESNA in Japanese, TDU, 2010. Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj, Anuška Ferligoj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Generalized Blockmodeling (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press 2004 (ISBN 0-521-84085-6)

  Read more →
• 

  Promoter based genetic algorithm

  The promoter based genetic algorithm (PBGA) is a genetic algorithm for neuroevolution developed by F. Bellas and R.J. Duro in the Integrated Group for Engineering Research (GII) at the University of Coruña, in Spain. It evolves variable size feedforward artificial neural networks (ANN) that are encoded into sequences of genes for constructing a basic ANN unit. Each of these blocks is preceded by a gene promoter acting as an on/off switch that determines if that particular unit will be expressed or not. == PBGA basics == The basic unit in the PBGA is a neuron with all of its inbound connections as represented in the following figure: The genotype of a basic unit is a set of real valued weights followed by the parameters of the neuron and proceeded by an integer valued field that determines the promoter gene value and, consequently, the expression of the unit. By concatenating units of this type we can construct the whole network. With this encoding it is imposed that the information that is not expressed is still carried by the genotype in evolution but it is shielded from direct selective pressure, maintaining this way the diversity in the population, which has been a design premise for this algorithm. Therefore, a clear difference is established between the search space and the solution space, permitting information learned and encoded into the genotypic representation to be preserved by disabling promoter genes. == Results == The PBGA was originally presented within the field of autonomous robotics, in particular in the real time learning of environment models of the robot. It has been used inside the Multilevel Darwinist Brain (MDB) cognitive mechanism developed in the GII for real robots on-line learning. In another paper it is shown how the application of the PBGA together with an external memory that stores the successful obtained world models, is an optimal strategy for adaptation in dynamic environments. Recently, the PBGA has provided results that outperform other neuroevolutionary algorithms in non-stationary problems, where the fitness function varies in time.

  Read more →
• 

  Public computer

  A public computer (or public access computer) is any of various computers available in public areas. Some places where public computers may be available are libraries, schools, or dedicated facilities run by government. Public computers share similar hardware and software components to personal computers, however, the role and function of a public access computer is entirely different. A public access computer is used by many different untrusted individuals throughout the course of the day. The computer must be locked down and secure against both intentional and unintentional abuse. Users typically do not have authority to install software or change settings. A personal computer, in contrast, is typically used by a single responsible user, who can customize the machine's behavior to their preferences. Public access computers are often provided with tools such as a PC reservation system to regulate access. The world's first public access computer center was the Marin Computer Center in California, co-founded by David and Annie Fox in 1977. == Kiosks == A kiosk is a special type of public computer using software and hardware modifications to provide services only about the place the kiosk is in. For example, a movie ticket kiosk can be found at a movie theater. These kiosks are usually in a secure browser with zero access to the desktop. Many of these kiosks may run Linux, however, ATMs, a kiosk designed for depositing money, often run Windows XP. == Public computers in the United States == === Library computers === In the United States and Canada, almost all public libraries have computers available for the use of patrons, though some libraries will impose a time limit on users to ensure others will get a turn and keep the library less busy. Users are often allowed to print documents that they have created using these computers, though sometimes for a small fee. ==== Privacy ==== Privacy is an important part of the public library institution, since the libraries entitle the public to intellectual freedom. Use of any computer or network may create records of users' activities that can jeopardize their privacy. It is possible for a patron to jeopardize their privacy if they do not delete cache, clear cookies, or documents from the public computer. In order for a member of the public to remain private on a computer, the American Library Association (ALA) has guidelines. These give patrons an idea of the right way to keep using public library computers. In their provision of services to library users, librarians have an ethical responsibility, expressed in the ALA Code of Ethics, to preserve users' right to privacy. A librarian is also responsible for giving users an understanding of private patron use and access. Libraries must ensure that users have the following rights when browsing on public computers: the computer automatically will clear a users history; libraries should display privacy screens so users do not see another patron's screen; updating software for effective safety measures; restoration data software to clear documents that users may have left on their computers and to combat possible malware; security practices; and making users aware of any possible monitoring of their browsing activities. Users can also view the Library Privacy Checklist for Public Access Computers and Networks to better understand what libraries strive for when protecting privacy. === School computers === The U.S. government has given money to many school boards to purchase computers for educational applications. Schools may have multiple computer labs, which contain these computers for students to use. There is usually Internet access on these machines, but some schools will put up a blocking service to limit the websites that students are able to access to only include educational resources, such as Google. In addition to controlling the content students are viewing, putting up these blocks can also help to keep the computers safe by preventing students from downloading malware and other threats. However, the effectiveness of such content filtering systems is questionable since it can easily be circumvented by using proxy websites, Virtual Private Networks, and for some weak security systems, merely knowing the IP address of the intended website is enough to bypass the filter. School computers often have advanced operating system security to prevent tech-savvy students from inflicting damage (i.e. the Windows Registry Editor and Task Manager, etc.) are disabled on Microsoft Windows machines. Schools with very advanced tech services may also install a locked down BIOS/firmware or make kernel-level changes to the operating system, precluding the possibility of unauthorized activity.

  Read more →
• 

  Swish function

  The swish function is a family of mathematical function defined as follows: swish β ⁡ ( x ) = x sigmoid ⁡ ( β x ) = x 1 + e − β x . {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=x\operatorname {sigmoid} (\beta x)={\frac {x}{1+e^{-\beta x}}}.} where β {\displaystyle \beta } can be constant (usually set to 1) or trainable and "sigmoid" refers to the logistic function. The swish family was designed to smoothly interpolate between a linear function and the Rectified linear unit (ReLU) function. When considering positive values, Swish is a particular case of doubly parameterized sigmoid shrinkage function defined in . Variants of the swish function include Mish. == Special values == For β = 0, the function is linear: f(x) = x/2. For β = 1, the function is the Sigmoid Linear Unit (SiLU). For β = 1.702, the function approximates GeLU. With β → ∞, the function converges to ReLU. Thus, the swish family smoothly interpolates between a linear function and the ReLU function. Since swish β ⁡ ( x ) = swish 1 ⁡ ( β x ) / β {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=\operatorname {swish} _{1}(\beta x)/\beta } , all instances of swish have the same shape as the default swish 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}} , zoomed by β {\displaystyle \beta } . One usually sets β > 0 {\displaystyle \beta >0} . When β {\displaystyle \beta } is trainable, this constraint can be enforced by β = e b {\displaystyle \beta =e^{b}} , where b {\displaystyle b} is trainable. swish 1 ⁡ ( x ) = x 2 + x 2 4 − x 4 48 + x 6 480 + O ( x 8 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)={\frac {x}{2}}+{\frac {x^{2}}{4}}-{\frac {x^{4}}{48}}+{\frac {x^{6}}{480}}+O\left(x^{8}\right)} swish 1 ⁡ ( x ) = x 2 tanh ⁡ ( x 2 ) + x 2 swish 1 ⁡ ( x ) + swish − 1 ⁡ ( x ) = x tanh ⁡ ( x 2 ) swish 1 ⁡ ( x ) − swish − 1 ⁡ ( x ) = x {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)&={\frac {x}{2}}\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)+{\frac {x}{2}}\\\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)+\operatorname {swish} _{-1}(x)&=x\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)\\\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)-\operatorname {swish} _{-1}(x)&=x\end{aligned}}} == Derivatives == Because swish β ⁡ ( x ) = swish 1 ⁡ ( β x ) / β {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=\operatorname {swish} _{1}(\beta x)/\beta } , it suffices to calculate its derivatives for the default case. swish 1 ′ ⁡ ( x ) = x + sinh ⁡ ( x ) 4 cosh 2 ⁡ ( x 2 ) + 1 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}'(x)={\frac {x+\sinh(x)}{4\cosh ^{2}\left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}}+{\frac {1}{2}}} so swish 1 ′ ⁡ ( x ) − 1 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}'(x)-{\frac {1}{2}}} is odd. swish 1 ″ ⁡ ( x ) = 1 − x 2 tanh ⁡ ( x 2 ) 2 cosh 2 ⁡ ( x 2 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}''(x)={\frac {1-{\frac {x}{2}}\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}{2\cosh ^{2}\left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}}} so swish 1 ″ ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}''(x)} is even. == History == SiLU was first proposed alongside the GELU in 2016, then again proposed in 2017 as the Sigmoid-weighted Linear Unit (SiL) in reinforcement learning. The SiLU/SiL was then again proposed as the SWISH over a year after its initial discovery, originally proposed without the learnable parameter β, so that β implicitly equaled 1. The swish paper was then updated to propose the activation with the learnable parameter β. In 2017, after performing analysis on ImageNet data, researchers from Google indicated that using this function as an activation function in artificial neural networks improves the performance, compared to ReLU and sigmoid functions. It is believed that one reason for the improvement is that the swish function helps alleviate the vanishing gradient problem during backpropagation.

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-entropy

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

  Read more →