AI Email Edit

AI Email Edit — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Automaton

  An automaton ( ; pl.: automata or automatons) is a relatively self-operating machine or control mechanism designed to automatically follow a sequence of operations or respond to predetermined instructions. Some automata, such as bellstrikers in mechanical clocks, are designed to give the illusion to the casual observer that they are operating under their own power or will, like a mechanical robot. The term has long been commonly associated with automated puppets that resemble moving humans or animals, built to impress and/or to entertain people. Animatronics are a modern type of automata with electronics, often used for the portrayal of characters or creatures in films and in theme park attractions. == Etymology == The word automaton is the latinization of the Ancient Greek automaton (αὐτόματον), which means "acting of one's own will". It was first used by Homer to describe an automatic door opening, or automatic movement of wheeled tripods. It is more often used to describe non-electronic moving machines, especially those that have been made to resemble human or animal actions, such as the jacks on old public striking clocks, or the cuckoo and any other animated figures on a cuckoo clock. == History == === Ancient === There are many examples of automata in Greek mythology: Hephaestus created automata for his workshop; Talos was an artificial man of bronze; King Alkinous of the Phaiakians employed gold and silver watchdogs. According to Aristotle, Daedalus used quicksilver to make his wooden statue of Aphrodite move. In other Greek legends he used quicksilver to install voice in his moving statues. The automata in the Hellenistic world were intended as tools, toys, religious spectacles, or prototypes for demonstrating basic scientific principles. Numerous water-powered automata were built by Ktesibios, a Greek inventor and the first head of the Great Library of Alexandria; for example, he "used water to sound a whistle and make a model owl move. He had invented the world's first 'cuckoo clock'". This tradition continued in Alexandria with inventors such as the Greek mathematician Hero of Alexandria (sometimes known as Heron), whose writings on hydraulics, pneumatics, and mechanics described siphons, a fire engine, a water organ, the aeolipile, and a programmable cart. Philo of Byzantium was famous for his inventions. Complex mechanical devices are known to have existed in Hellenistic Greece, though the only surviving example is the Antikythera mechanism, the earliest known analog computer. The clockwork is thought to have come originally from Rhodes, where there was apparently a tradition of mechanical engineering; the island was renowned for its automata; to quote Pindar's seventh Olympic Ode: The animated figures stand Adorning every public street And seem to breathe in stone, or move their marble feet. However, the information gleaned from recent scans of the fragments indicate that it may have come from the colonies of Corinth in Sicily and implies a connection with Archimedes. According to Jewish legend, King Solomon used his wisdom to design a throne with mechanical animals which hailed him as king when he ascended it; upon sitting down an eagle would place a crown upon his head, and a dove would bring him a Torah scroll. It is also said that when King Solomon stepped upon the throne, a mechanism was set in motion. As soon as he stepped upon the first step, a golden ox and a golden lion each stretched out one foot to support him and help him rise to the next step. On each side, the animals helped the King up until he was comfortably seated upon the throne. In ancient China, a curious account of automata is found in the Lie Zi text, believed to have originated around 400 BCE and compiled around the fourth century CE. Within it there is a description of a much earlier encounter between King Mu of Zhou (1023–957 BCE) and a mechanical engineer known as Yan Shi, an 'artificer'. The latter proudly presented the king with a very realistic and detailed life-size, human-shaped figure of his mechanical handiwork: The king stared at the figure in astonishment. It walked with rapid strides, moving its head up and down, so that anyone would have taken it for a live human being. The artificer touched its chin, and it began singing, perfectly in tune. He touched its hand, and it began posturing, keeping perfect time...As the performance was drawing to an end, the robot winked its eye and made advances to the ladies in attendance, whereupon the king became incensed and would have had Yen Shih [Yan Shi] executed on the spot had not the latter, in mortal fear, instantly taken the robot to pieces to let him see what it really was. And, indeed, it turned out to be only a construction of leather, wood, glue and lacquer, variously coloured white, black, red and blue. Examining it closely, the king found all the internal organs complete—liver, gall, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, stomach and intestines; and over these again, muscles, bones and limbs with their joints, skin, teeth and hair, all of them artificial...The king tried the effect of taking away the heart, and found that the mouth could no longer speak; he took away the liver and the eyes could no longer see; he took away the kidneys and the legs lost their power of locomotion. The king was delighted. Other notable examples of automata include Archytas' dove, mentioned by Aulus Gellius. Similar Chinese accounts of flying automata are written of the 5th century BC Mohist philosopher Mozi and his contemporary Lu Ban, who made artificial wooden birds (ma yuan) that could successfully fly according to the Han Fei Zi and other texts. === Medieval === The manufacturing tradition of automata continued in the Greek world well into the Middle Ages. On his visit to Constantinople in 949 ambassador Liutprand of Cremona described automata in the emperor Theophilos' palace, including "lions, made either of bronze or wood covered with gold, which struck the ground with their tails and roared with open mouth and quivering tongue," "a tree of gilded bronze, its branches filled with birds, likewise made of bronze gilded over, and these emitted cries appropriate to their species" and "the emperor's throne" itself, which "was made in such a cunning manner that at one moment it was down on the ground, while at another it rose higher and was to be seen up in the air." Similar automata in the throne room (singing birds, roaring and moving lions) were described by Luitprand's contemporary the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his book De Ceremoniis (Perì tês Basileíou Tákseōs). In the mid-8th century, the first wind powered automata were built: "statues that turned with the wind over the domes of the four gates and the palace complex of the Round City of Baghdad". The "public spectacle of wind-powered statues had its private counterpart in the 'Abbasid palaces where automata of various types were predominantly displayed." Also in the 8th century, the Muslim alchemist, Jābir ibn Hayyān (Geber), included recipes for constructing artificial snakes, scorpions, and humans that would be subject to their creator's control in his coded Book of Stones. In 827, Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun had a silver and golden tree in his palace in Baghdad, which had the features of an automatic machine. There were metal birds that sang automatically on the swinging branches of this tree built by Muslim inventors and engineers. The Abbasid caliph al-Muqtadir also had a silver and golden tree in his palace in Baghdad in 917, with birds on it flapping their wings and singing. In the 9th century, the Banū Mūsā brothers invented a programmable automatic flute player and which they described in their Book of Ingenious Devices. Al-Jazari described complex programmable humanoid automata amongst other machines he designed and constructed in the Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices in 1206. His automaton was a boat with four automatic musicians that floated on a lake to entertain guests at royal drinking parties. His mechanism had a programmable drum machine with pegs (cams) that bump into little levers that operate the percussion. The drummer could be made to play different rhythms and drum patterns if the pegs were moved around. Al-Jazari constructed a hand washing automaton first employing the flush mechanism now used in modern toilets. It features a female automaton standing by a basin filled with water. When the user pulls the lever, the water drains and the automaton refills the basin. His "peacock fountain" was another more sophisticated hand washing device featuring humanoid automata as servants who offer soap and towels. Mark E. Rosheim describes it as follows: "Pulling a plug on the peacock's tail releases water out of the beak; as the dirty water from the basin fills the hollow base a float rises and actuates a linkage which makes a servant figure appear from behind a door under the peacock and offer soap.

  Read more →
• 

  U-matrix

  The U-matrix (unified distance matrix) is a representation of a self-organizing map (SOM) where the Euclidean distance between the codebook vectors of neighboring neurons is depicted in a grayscale image. This image is used to visualize the data in a high-dimensional space using a 2D image. == Construction procedure == Once the SOM is trained using the input data, the final map is not expected to have any twists. If the map is twist-free, the distance between the codebook vectors of neighboring neurons gives an approximation of the distance between different parts of the underlying data. When such distances are depicted in a grayscale image, light colors depict closely spaced node codebook vectors and darker colors indicate more widely separated node codebook vectors. Thus, groups of light colors can be considered as clusters, and the dark parts as the boundaries between the clusters. This representation can help to visualize the clusters in the high-dimensional spaces, or to automatically recognize them using relatively simple image processing techniques.

  Read more →
• 

  Correspondence analysis

  Correspondence analysis (CA) is a multivariate statistical technique proposed by Herman Otto Hartley (Hirschfeld) and later developed by Jean-Paul Benzécri. It is conceptually similar to principal component analysis, but applies to categorical rather than continuous data. In a manner similar to principal component analysis, it provides a means of displaying or summarising a set of data in two-dimensional graphical form. Its aim is to display in a biplot any structure hidden in the multivariate setting of the data table. As such it is a technique from the field of multivariate ordination. Since the variant of CA described here can be applied either with a focus on the rows or on the columns it should in fact be called simple (symmetric) correspondence analysis. It is traditionally applied to the contingency table of a pair of nominal variables where each cell contains either a count or a zero value. If more than two categorical variables are to be summarized, a variant called multiple correspondence analysis should be chosen instead. CA may also be applied to binary data given the presence/absence coding represents simplified count data i.e. a 1 describes a positive count and 0 stands for a count of zero. Depending on the scores used CA preserves the chi-square distance between either the rows or the columns of the table. Because CA is a descriptive technique, it can be applied to tables regardless of a significant chi-squared test. Although the χ 2 {\displaystyle \chi ^{2}} statistic used in inferential statistics and the chi-square distance are computationally related they should not be confused since the latter works as a multivariate statistical distance measure in CA while the χ 2 {\displaystyle \chi ^{2}} statistic is in fact a scalar not a metric. == Details == Like principal components analysis, correspondence analysis creates orthogonal components (or axes) and, for each item in a table i.e. for each row, a set of scores (sometimes called factor scores, see Factor analysis). Correspondence analysis is performed on the data table, conceived as matrix C of size m × n where m is the number of rows and n is the number of columns. In the following mathematical description of the method capital letters in italics refer to a matrix while letters in italics refer to vectors. Understanding the following computations requires knowledge of matrix algebra. === Preprocessing === Before proceeding to the central computational step of the algorithm, the values in matrix C have to be transformed. First compute a set of weights for the columns and the rows (sometimes called masses), where row and column weights are given by the row and column vectors, respectively: w m = 1 n C C 1 , w n = 1 n C 1 T C . {\displaystyle w_{m}={\frac {1}{n_{C}}}C\mathbf {1} ,\quad w_{n}={\frac {1}{n_{C}}}\mathbf {1} ^{T}C.} Here n C = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m C i j {\displaystyle n_{C}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{m}C_{ij}} is the sum of all cell values in matrix C, or short the sum of C, and 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } is a column vector of ones with the appropriate dimension. Put in simple words, w m {\displaystyle w_{m}} is just a vector whose elements are the row sums of C divided by the sum of C, and w n {\displaystyle w_{n}} is a vector whose elements are the column sums of C divided by the sum of C. The weights are transformed into diagonal matrices W m = diag ⁡ ( 1 / w m ) {\displaystyle W_{m}=\operatorname {diag} (1/{\sqrt {w_{m}}})} and W n = diag ⁡ ( 1 / w n ) {\displaystyle W_{n}=\operatorname {diag} (1/{\sqrt {w_{n}}})} where the diagonal elements of W n {\displaystyle W_{n}} are 1 / w n {\displaystyle 1/{\sqrt {w_{n}}}} and those of W m {\displaystyle W_{m}} are 1 / w m {\displaystyle 1/{\sqrt {w_{m}}}} respectively i.e. the vector elements are the inverses of the square roots of the masses. The off-diagonal elements are all 0. Next, compute matrix P {\displaystyle P} by dividing C {\displaystyle C} by its sum P = 1 n C C . {\displaystyle P={\frac {1}{n_{C}}}C.} In simple words, Matrix P {\displaystyle P} is just the data matrix (contingency table or binary table) transformed into portions i.e. each cell value is just the cell portion of the sum of the whole table. Finally, compute matrix S {\displaystyle S} , sometimes called the matrix of standardized residuals, by matrix multiplication as S = W m ( P − w m w n ) W n {\displaystyle S=W_{m}(P-w_{m}w_{n})W_{n}} Note, the vectors w m {\displaystyle w_{m}} and w n {\displaystyle w_{n}} are combined in an outer product resulting in a matrix of the same dimensions as P {\displaystyle P} . In words the formula reads: matrix outer ⁡ ( w m , w n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {outer} (w_{m},w_{n})} is subtracted from matrix P {\displaystyle P} and the resulting matrix is scaled (weighted) by the diagonal matrices W m {\displaystyle W_{m}} and W n {\displaystyle W_{n}} . Multiplying the resulting matrix by the diagonal matrices is equivalent to multiply the i-th row (or column) of it by the i-th element of the diagonal of W m {\displaystyle W_{m}} or W n {\displaystyle W_{n}} , respectively. === Interpretation of preprocessing === The vectors w m {\displaystyle w_{m}} and w n {\displaystyle w_{n}} are the row and column masses or the marginal probabilities for the rows and columns, respectively. Subtracting matrix outer ⁡ ( w m , w n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {outer} (w_{m},w_{n})} from matrix P {\displaystyle P} is the matrix algebra version of double centering the data. Multiplying this difference by the diagonal weighting matrices results in a matrix containing weighted deviations from the origin of a vector space. This origin is defined by matrix outer ⁡ ( w m , w n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {outer} (w_{m},w_{n})} . In fact matrix outer ⁡ ( w m , w n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {outer} (w_{m},w_{n})} is identical with the matrix of expected frequencies in the chi-squared test. Therefore S {\displaystyle S} is computationally related to the independence model used in that test. But since CA is not an inferential method the term independence model is inappropriate here. === Orthogonal components === The table S {\displaystyle S} is then decomposed by a singular value decomposition as S = U Σ V ∗ {\displaystyle S=U\Sigma V^{}\,} where U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are the left and right singular vectors of S {\displaystyle S} and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a square diagonal matrix with the singular values σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} of S {\displaystyle S} on the diagonal. Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is of dimension p ≤ ( min ( m , n ) − 1 ) {\displaystyle p\leq (\min(m,n)-1)} hence U {\displaystyle U} is of dimension m×p and V {\displaystyle V} is of n×p. As orthonormal vectors U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} fulfill U ∗ U = V ∗ V = I {\displaystyle U^{}U=V^{}V=I} . In other words, the multivariate information that is contained in C {\displaystyle C} as well as in S {\displaystyle S} is now distributed across two (coordinate) matrices U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} and a diagonal (scaling) matrix Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } . The vector space defined by them has as number of dimensions p, that is the smaller of the two values, number of rows and number of columns, minus 1. === Inertia === While a principal component analysis may be said to decompose the (co)variance, and hence its measure of success is the amount of (co-)variance covered by the first few PCA axes - measured in eigenvalue -, a CA works with a weighted (co-)variance which is called inertia. The sum of the squared singular values is the total inertia I {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} } of the data table, computed as I = ∑ i = 1 p σ i 2 . {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} =\sum _{i=1}^{p}\sigma _{i}^{2}.} The total inertia I {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} } of the data table can also computed directly from S {\displaystyle S} as I = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m s i j 2 . {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{m}s_{ij}^{2}.} The amount of inertia covered by the i-th set of singular vectors is ι i {\displaystyle \iota _{i}} , the principal inertia. The higher the portion of inertia covered by the first few singular vectors i.e. the larger the sum of the principal inertiae in comparison to the total inertia, the more successful a CA is. Therefore, all principal inertia values are expressed as portion ϵ i {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}} of the total inertia ϵ i = σ i 2 / ∑ i = 1 p σ i 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}=\sigma _{i}^{2}/\sum _{i=1}^{p}\sigma _{i}^{2}} and are presented in the form of a scree plot. In fact a scree plot is just a bar plot of all principal inertia portions ϵ i {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}} . === Coordinates === To transform the singular vectors to coordinates which preserve the chi-square distances between rows or columns an additional weighting step is necessary. The resulting coordinates are called principal coordinates in CA text books. If principal coordinates are used for

  Read more →
• 

  Gaussian adaptation

  Gaussian adaptation (GA), also called normal or natural adaptation (NA) is an evolutionary algorithm designed for the maximization of manufacturing yield due to statistical deviation of component values of signal processing systems. In short, GA is a stochastic adaptive process where a number of samples of an n-dimensional vector x[xT = (x1, x2, ..., xn)] are taken from a multivariate Gaussian distribution, N(m, M), having mean m and moment matrix M. The samples are tested for fail or pass. The first- and second-order moments of the Gaussian restricted to the pass samples are m and M. The outcome of x as a pass sample is determined by a function s(x), 0 < s(x) < q ≤ 1, such that s(x) is the probability that x will be selected as a pass sample. The average probability of finding pass samples (yield) is P ( m ) = ∫ s ( x ) N ( x − m ) d x {\displaystyle P(m)=\int s(x)N(x-m)\,dx} Then the theorem of GA states: For any s(x) and for any value of P < q, there always exist a Gaussian p. d. f. [ probability density function ] that is adapted for maximum dispersion. The necessary conditions for a local optimum are m = m and M proportional to M. The dual problem is also solved: P is maximized while keeping the dispersion constant (Kjellström, 1991). Proofs of the theorem may be found in the papers by Kjellström, 1970, and Kjellström & Taxén, 1981. Since dispersion is defined as the exponential of entropy/disorder/average information it immediately follows that the theorem is valid also for those concepts. Altogether, this means that Gaussian adaptation may carry out a simultaneous maximisation of yield and average information (without any need for the yield or the average information to be defined as criterion functions). The theorem is valid for all regions of acceptability and all Gaussian distributions. It may be used by cyclic repetition of random variation and selection (like the natural evolution). In every cycle a sufficiently large number of Gaussian distributed points are sampled and tested for membership in the region of acceptability. The centre of gravity of the Gaussian, m, is then moved to the centre of gravity of the approved (selected) points, m. Thus, the process converges to a state of equilibrium fulfilling the theorem. A solution is always approximate because the centre of gravity is always determined for a limited number of points. It was used for the first time in 1969 as a pure optimization algorithm making the regions of acceptability smaller and smaller (in analogy to simulated annealing, Kirkpatrick 1983). Since 1970 it has been used for both ordinary optimization and yield maximization. == Natural evolution and Gaussian adaptation == It has also been compared to the natural evolution of populations of living organisms. In this case s(x) is the probability that the individual having an array x of phenotypes will survive by giving offspring to the next generation; a definition of individual fitness given by Hartl 1981. The yield, P, is replaced by the mean fitness determined as a mean over the set of individuals in a large population. Phenotypes are often Gaussian distributed in a large population and a necessary condition for the natural evolution to be able to fulfill the theorem of Gaussian adaptation, with respect to all Gaussian quantitative characters, is that it may push the centre of gravity of the Gaussian to the centre of gravity of the selected individuals. This may be accomplished by the Hardy–Weinberg law. This is possible because the theorem of Gaussian adaptation is valid for any region of acceptability independent of the structure (Kjellström, 1996). In this case the rules of genetic variation such as crossover, inversion, transposition etcetera may be seen as random number generators for the phenotypes. So, in this sense Gaussian adaptation may be seen as a genetic algorithm. == How to climb a mountain == Mean fitness may be calculated provided that the distribution of parameters and the structure of the landscape is known. The real landscape is not known, but figure below shows a fictitious profile (blue) of a landscape along a line (x) in a room spanned by such parameters. The red curve is the mean based on the red bell curve at the bottom of figure. It is obtained by letting the bell curve slide along the x-axis, calculating the mean at every location. As can be seen, small peaks and pits are smoothed out. Thus, if evolution is started at A with a relatively small variance (the red bell curve), then climbing will take place on the red curve. The process may get stuck for millions of years at B or C, as long as the hollows to the right of these points remain, and the mutation rate is too small. If the mutation rate is sufficiently high, the disorder or variance may increase and the parameter(s) may become distributed like the green bell curve. Then the climbing will take place on the green curve, which is even more smoothed out. Because the hollows to the right of B and C have now disappeared, the process may continue up to the peaks at D. But of course the landscape puts a limit on the disorder or variability. Besides — dependent on the landscape — the process may become very jerky, and if the ratio between the time spent by the process at a local peak and the time of transition to the next peak is very high, it may as well look like a punctuated equilibrium as suggested by Gould (see Ridley). == Computer simulation of Gaussian adaptation == Thus far the theory only considers mean values of continuous distributions corresponding to an infinite number of individuals. In reality however, the number of individuals is always limited, which gives rise to an uncertainty in the estimation of m and M (the moment matrix of the Gaussian). And this may also affect the efficiency of the process. Unfortunately very little is known about this, at least theoretically. The implementation of normal adaptation on a computer is a fairly simple task. The adaptation of m may be done by one sample (individual) at a time, for example m(i + 1) = (1 – a) m(i) + ax where x is a pass sample, and a < 1 a suitable constant so that the inverse of a represents the number of individuals in the population. M may in principle be updated after every step y leading to a feasible point x = m + y according to: M(i + 1) = (1 – 2b) M(i) + 2byyT, where yT is the transpose of y and b << 1 is another suitable constant. In order to guarantee a suitable increase of average information, y should be normally distributed with moment matrix μ2M, where the scalar μ > 1 is used to increase average information (information entropy, disorder, diversity) at a suitable rate. But M will never be used in the calculations. Instead we use the matrix W defined by WWT = M. Thus, we have y = Wg, where g is normally distributed with the moment matrix μU, and U is the unit matrix. W and WT may be updated by the formulas W = (1 – b)W + bygT and WT = (1 – b)WT + bgyT because multiplication gives M = (1 – 2b)M + 2byyT, where terms including b2 have been neglected. Thus, M will be indirectly adapted with good approximation. In practice it will suffice to update W only W(i + 1) = (1 – b)W(i) + bygT. This is the formula used in a simple 2-dimensional model of a brain satisfying the Hebbian rule of associative learning; see the next section (Kjellström, 1996 and 1999). The figure below illustrates the effect of increased average information in a Gaussian p.d.f. used to climb a mountain Crest (the two lines represent the contour line). Both the red and green cluster have equal mean fitness, about 65%, but the green cluster has a much higher average information making the green process much more efficient. The effect of this adaptation is not very salient in a 2-dimensional case, but in a high-dimensional case, the efficiency of the search process may be increased by many orders of magnitude. == The evolution in the brain == In the brain the evolution of DNA-messages is supposed to be replaced by an evolution of signal patterns and the phenotypic landscape is replaced by a mental landscape, the complexity of which will hardly be second to the former. The metaphor with the mental landscape is based on the assumption that certain signal patterns give rise to a better well-being or performance. For instance, the control of a group of muscles leads to a better pronunciation of a word or performance of a piece of music. In this simple model it is assumed that the brain consists of interconnected components that may add, multiply and delay signal values. A nerve cell kernel may add signal values, a synapse may multiply with a constant and An axon may delay values. This is a basis of the theory of digital filters and neural networks consisting of components that may add, multiply and delay signalvalues and also of many brain models, Levine 1991. In the figure below the brain stem is supposed to deliver Gaussian distributed signal patterns. This may be possible since certai

  Read more →
• 

  Dropbox Paper

  Dropbox Paper, or simply Paper, is a collaborative document-editing service developed by Dropbox. Originating from the company's acquisition of document collaboration company Hackpad in April 2014, Dropbox Paper was officially announced in October 2015, and launched in January 2017. It offers a web application, as well as mobile apps for Android and iOS. Dropbox Paper was described in the official announcement post as "a flexible workspace that brings people and ideas together. With Paper, teams can create, review, revise, manage, and organize — all in shared documents". Reception of Dropbox Paper has been mixed. Critics praised collaboration functionality, including content available immediately, the ability to mention specific collaborators, assign tasks, write comments, as well as editing attribution, and revision history. It received particular praise for its support for rich media from a variety of sources, with one reviewer noting that the Paper's support for rich media exceeds the capabilities of most of its competitors. However, it was criticized for a lack of formatting options and editing features. While the user interface was liked for being minimal, reviewers cited the lack of a fixed formatting bar and missing features present in competitors' products as making Dropbox Paper seem like a "light" tool. == History == Dropbox acquired document collaboration company Hackpad in April 2014. A year later, Dropbox launched a Dropbox Notes note-taking product in beta testing phase. Dropbox Paper was officially announced on October 15, 2015, followed by an open beta and release of mobile Android and iOS apps in August 2016. Dropbox Paper was officially released on January 30, 2017. == Reception == In a comparison between Dropbox Paper and Evernote, PC World's Michael Ansaldo wrote that "With its emphasis on document creation, you might expect formatting to be front and center in Dropbox Paper. That's not the case." Ansaldo noted the lack of a "fixed formatting toolbar as you'd find in Evernote or a word processor like Google Docs or Microsoft Word. Instead, the text editor appears as a floating ribbon only when you highlight selected text." The only formatting options available for emphasis were bolding, strikethrough, bulleted and numbered lists, and H1 and H2 tags. Users can also add links, convert text to checklists, and add comments. Ansaldo wrote that "Both Evernote and Dropbox Paper make it easy to add images to a document", but also noted that "Dropbox Paper doesn't support any image editing". Paper supports rich media, and users can "add rich content to your document just by pasting a link to the file. In addition to Dropbox, Paper supports media from a variety of popular services including YouTube, Spotify, Vimeo, SoundCloud, Facebook, and Google's productivity suite. Once the file appears, you can delete the link for a cleaner display." To start working with other people, Paper "allows you to invite people via email from within a document", with sharing options for who can view the link (anyone with the link or just the invited person), and action permissions (edit or only comment). Regarding collaboration, Ansaldo wrote that "Creative collaboration is Paper’s marquee feature, and it provides a variety of ways to work effectively with others in real time". Users can "make any content immediately visible and accessible to a specific collaborator with "@mentions"", and "You can also use @mentions to create and assign task lists within a document." Paper also "boasts essential collaboration tools including comments, editing attribution, and revision history." Writing for TechRadar, John Brandon wrote that Dropbox Paper "might be a 'light' tool for now without the extensive templates of Microsoft Office or the integration with other apps in the Zoho suite, but it does work well with the Dropbox storage service that's so popular with office workers these days." Kyle Wiggers of Digital Trends wrote that Paper is "all about minimizing distractions. Its interface is quite literally a big, blank canvas on which you tap out your agenda. You can organize notes by title and create to-do lists, but even basic formatting tools are obscured from view", noting Paper's "floating box above words and phrases highlighted by your cursor". Wiggers stated that "Paper is not a to-do organizer", but that it's "well suited to the purpose thanks to a bevy of labor-saving conveniences", highlighting that Paper "supports more media than most of its to-do and note-taking counterparts". He praised the collaboration tools, writing that they "are as extensive as you'd hope, and then some", citing its invitation system with permission controls, lists of changes and revision history, comment and chat support, and "perhaps best of all", the ability to assign tasks with a "@" mention. Business Insider's Alex Heath praised that "Paper's interface is spotless and friendly to write in. You don't feel overwhelmed with formatting options", but criticized the available features, writing that "Google Docs is much more full-featured in the formatting department, so Paper has some catching up to do if it wants to be on par with the competition". Writing for The Verge, Casey Newton praised Paper's handling of rich media, complimenting it for being "great", and added that "I imagine that creative types who work on teams will appreciate having rich media embedded in the documents they're working on rather than in a series of infinite tabs".

  Read more →
• 

  Prototype methods

  Prototype methods are machine learning methods that use data prototypes. A data prototype is a data value that reflects other values in its class, e.g., the centroid in a K-means clustering problem. == Methods == The following are some prototype methods K-means clustering Learning vector quantization (LVQ) Gaussian mixtures == Related Methods == While K-nearest neighbor's does not use prototypes, it is similar to prototype methods like K-means clustering.

  Read more →
• 

  Multiple correspondence analysis

  In statistics, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) is a data analysis technique for nominal categorical data, used to detect and represent underlying structures in a data set. It does this by representing data as points in a low-dimensional Euclidean space. The procedure thus appears to be the counterpart of principal component analysis for categorical data. MCA can be viewed as an extension of simple correspondence analysis (CA) in that it is applicable to a large set of categorical variables. == As an extension of correspondence analysis == MCA is performed by applying the CA algorithm to either an indicator matrix (also called complete disjunctive table – CDT) or a Burt table formed from these variables. An indicator matrix is an individuals × variables matrix, where the rows represent individuals and the columns are dummy variables representing categories of the variables. Analyzing the indicator matrix allows the direct representation of individuals as points in geometric space. The Burt table is the symmetric matrix of all two-way cross-tabulations between the categorical variables, and has an analogy to the covariance matrix of continuous variables. Analyzing the Burt table is a more natural generalization of simple correspondence analysis, and individuals or the means of groups of individuals can be added as supplementary points to the graphical display. In the indicator matrix approach, associations between variables are uncovered by calculating the chi-square distance between different categories of the variables and between the individuals (or respondents). These associations are then represented graphically as "maps", which eases the interpretation of the structures in the data. Oppositions between rows and columns are then maximized, in order to uncover the underlying dimensions best able to describe the central oppositions in the data. As in factor analysis or principal component analysis, the first axis is the most important dimension, the second axis the second most important, and so on, in terms of the amount of variance accounted for. The number of axes to be retained for analysis is determined by calculating modified eigenvalues. == Details == Since MCA is adapted to draw statistical conclusions from categorical variables (such as multiple choice questions), the first thing one needs to do is to transform quantitative data (such as age, size, weight, day time, etc) into categories (using for instance statistical quantiles). When the dataset is completely represented as categorical variables, one is able to build the corresponding so-called complete disjunctive table. We denote this table X {\displaystyle X} . If I {\displaystyle I} persons answered a survey with J {\displaystyle J} multiple choices questions with 4 answers each, X {\displaystyle X} will have I {\displaystyle I} rows and 4 J {\displaystyle 4J} columns. More theoretically, assume X {\displaystyle X} is the completely disjunctive table of I {\displaystyle I} observations of K {\displaystyle K} categorical variables. Assume also that the k {\displaystyle k} -th variable have J k {\displaystyle J_{k}} different levels (categories) and set J = ∑ k = 1 K J k {\displaystyle J=\sum _{k=1}^{K}J_{k}} . The table X {\displaystyle X} is then a I × J {\displaystyle I\times J} matrix with all coefficient being 0 {\displaystyle 0} or 1 {\displaystyle 1} . Set the sum of all entries of X {\displaystyle X} to be N {\displaystyle N} and introduce Z = X / N {\displaystyle Z=X/N} . In an MCA, there are also two special vectors: first r {\displaystyle r} , that contains the sums along the rows of Z {\displaystyle Z} , and c {\displaystyle c} , that contains the sums along the columns of Z {\displaystyle Z} . Note D r = diag ( r ) {\displaystyle D_{r}={\text{diag}}(r)} and D c = diag ( c ) {\displaystyle D_{c}={\text{diag}}(c)} , the diagonal matrices containing r {\displaystyle r} and c {\displaystyle c} respectively as diagonal. With these notations, computing an MCA consists essentially in the singular value decomposition of the matrix: M = D r − 1 / 2 ( Z − r c T ) D c − 1 / 2 {\displaystyle M=D_{r}^{-1/2}(Z-rc^{T})D_{c}^{-1/2}} The decomposition of M {\displaystyle M} gives you P {\displaystyle P} , Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } and Q {\displaystyle Q} such that M = P Δ Q T {\displaystyle M=P\Delta Q^{T}} with P, Q two unitary matrices and Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } is the generalized diagonal matrix of the singular values (with the same shape as Z {\displaystyle Z} ). The positive coefficients of Δ 2 {\displaystyle \Delta ^{2}} are the eigenvalues of Z {\displaystyle Z} . The interest of MCA comes from the way observations (rows) and variables (columns) in Z {\displaystyle Z} can be decomposed. This decomposition is called a factor decomposition. The coordinates of the observations in the factor space are given by F = D r − 1 / 2 P Δ {\displaystyle F=D_{r}^{-1/2}P\Delta } The i {\displaystyle i} -th rows of F {\displaystyle F} represent the i {\displaystyle i} -th observation in the factor space. And similarly, the coordinates of the variables (in the same factor space as observations!) are given by G = D c − 1 / 2 Q Δ {\displaystyle G=D_{c}^{-1/2}Q\Delta } == Recent works and extensions == In recent years, several students of Jean-Paul Benzécri have refined MCA and incorporated it into a more general framework of data analysis known as geometric data analysis. This involves the development of direct connections between simple correspondence analysis, principal component analysis and MCA with a form of cluster analysis known as Euclidean classification. Two extensions have great practical use. It is possible to include, as active elements in the MCA, several quantitative variables. This extension is called factor analysis of mixed data (see below). Very often, in questionnaires, the questions are structured in several issues. In the statistical analysis it is necessary to take into account this structure. This is the aim of multiple factor analysis which balances the different issues (i.e. the different groups of variables) within a global analysis and provides, beyond the classical results of factorial analysis (mainly graphics of individuals and of categories), several results (indicators and graphics) specific of the group structure. == Application fields == In the social sciences, MCA is arguably best known for its application by Pierre Bourdieu, notably in his books La Distinction, Homo Academicus and The State Nobility. Bourdieu argued that there was an internal link between his vision of the social as spatial and relational --– captured by the notion of field, and the geometric properties of MCA. Sociologists following Bourdieu's work most often opt for the analysis of the indicator matrix, rather than the Burt table, largely because of the central importance accorded to the analysis of the 'cloud of individuals'. == Multiple correspondence analysis and principal component analysis == MCA can also be viewed as a PCA applied to the complete disjunctive table. To do this, the CDT must be transformed as follows. Let y i k {\displaystyle y_{ik}} denote the general term of the CDT. y i k {\displaystyle y_{ik}} is equal to 1 if individual i {\displaystyle i} possesses the category k {\displaystyle k} and 0 if not. Let denote p k {\displaystyle p_{k}} , the proportion of individuals possessing the category k {\displaystyle k} . The transformed CDT (TCDT) has as general term: x i k = y i k / p k − 1 {\displaystyle x_{ik}=y_{ik}/p_{k}-1} The unstandardized PCA applied to TCDT, the column k {\displaystyle k} having the weight p k {\displaystyle p_{k}} , leads to the results of MCA. This equivalence is fully explained in a book by Jérôme Pagès. It plays an important theoretical role because it opens the way to the simultaneous treatment of quantitative and qualitative variables. Two methods simultaneously analyze these two types of variables: factor analysis of mixed data and, when the active variables are partitioned in several groups: multiple factor analysis. This equivalence does not mean that MCA is a particular case of PCA as it is not a particular case of CA. It only means that these methods are closely linked to one another, as they belong to the same family: the factorial methods. == Software == There are numerous software of data analysis that include MCA, such as STATA and SPSS. The R package FactoMineR also features MCA. This software is related to a book describing the basic methods for performing MCA . There is also a Python package for [1] which works with numpy array matrices; the package has not been implemented yet for Spark dataframes.

  Read more →
• 

  NETtalk (artificial neural network)

  NETtalk is an artificial neural network that learns to pronounce written English text by supervised learning. It takes English text as input, and produces a matching phonetic transcriptions as output. It is the result of research carried out in the mid-1980s by Terrence Sejnowski and Charles Rosenberg. The intent behind NETtalk was to construct simplified models that might shed light on the complexity of learning human level cognitive tasks, and their implementation as a connectionist model that could also learn to perform a comparable task. The authors trained it by backpropagation. The network was trained on a large amount of English words and their corresponding pronunciations, and is able to generate pronunciations for unseen words with a high level of accuracy. The output of the network was a stream of phonemes, which fed into DECtalk to produce audible speech. It achieved popular success, appearing on the Today show. From the point of view of modeling human cognition, NETtalk does not specifically model the image processing stages and letter recognition of the visual cortex. Rather, it assumes that the letters have been pre-classified and recognized. It is NETtalk's task to learn proper associations between the correct pronunciation with a given sequence of letters based on the context in which the letters appear. A similar architecture was subsequently used for the opposite task, that of converting continuous speech signal to a phoneme sequence. == Training == The training dataset was a 20,008-word subset of the Brown Corpus, with manually annotated phoneme and stress for each letter. The development process was described in a 1993 interview. It took three months -- 250 person-hours -- to create the training dataset, but only a few days to train the network. After it was run successfully on this, the authors tried it on a phonological transcription of an interview with a young Latino boy from a barrio in Los Angeles. This resulted in a network that reproduced his Spanish accent. The original NETtalk was implemented on a Ridge 32, which took 0.275 seconds per learning step (one forward and one backward pass). Training NETtalk became a benchmark to test for the efficiency of backpropagation programs. For example, an implementation on Connection Machine-1 (with 16384 processors) ran at 52x speedup. An implementation on a 10-cell Warp ran at 340x speedup. The following table compiles the benchmark scores as of 1988. Speed is measured in "millions of connections per second" (MCPS). For example, the original NETtalk on Ridge 32 took 0.275 seconds per forward-backward pass, giving 18629 / 10 6 0.275 = 0.068 {\displaystyle {\frac {18629/10^{6}}{0.275}}=0.068} MCPS. Relative times are normalized to the MicroVax. == Architecture == The network had three layers and 18,629 adjustable weights, large by the standards of 1986. There were worries that it would overfit the dataset, but it was trained successfully. The input of the network has 203 units, divided into 7 groups of 29 units each. Each group is a one-hot encoding of one character. There are 29 possible characters: 26 letters, comma, period, and word boundary (whitespace). To produce the pronunciation of a single character, the network takes the character itself, as well as 3 characters before and 3 characters after it. The hidden layer has 80 units. The output has 26 units. 21 units encode for articulatory features (point of articulation, voicing, vowel height, etc.) of phonemes, and 5 units encode for stress and syllable boundaries. Sejnowski studied the learned representation in the network, and found that phonemes that sound similar are clustered together in representation space. The output of the network degrades, but remains understandable, when some hidden neurons are removed.

  Read more →
• 

  Connectionist expert system

  Connectionist expert systems are artificial neural network (ANN) based expert systems where the ANN generates inferencing rules e.g., fuzzy-multi layer perceptron where linguistic and natural form of inputs are used. Apart from that, rough set theory may be used for encoding knowledge in the weights better and also genetic algorithms may be used to optimize the search solutions better. Symbolic reasoning methods may also be incorporated (see hybrid intelligent system). (Also see expert system, neural network, clinical decision support system.)

  Read more →
• 

  Variational message passing

  Variational message passing (VMP) is an approximate inference technique for continuous- or discrete-valued Bayesian networks, with conjugate-exponential parents, developed by John Winn. VMP was developed as a means of generalizing the approximate variational methods used by such techniques as latent Dirichlet allocation, and works by updating an approximate distribution at each node through messages in the node's Markov blanket. == Likelihood lower bound == Given some set of hidden variables H {\displaystyle H} and observed variables V {\displaystyle V} , the goal of approximate inference is to maximize a lower-bound on the probability that a graphical model is in the configuration V {\displaystyle V} . Over some probability distribution Q {\displaystyle Q} (to be defined later), ln ⁡ P ( V ) = ∑ H Q ( H ) ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) P ( H | V ) = ∑ H Q ( H ) [ ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) Q ( H ) − ln ⁡ P ( H | V ) Q ( H ) ] {\displaystyle \ln P(V)=\sum _{H}Q(H)\ln {\frac {P(H,V)}{P(H|V)}}=\sum _{H}Q(H){\Bigg [}\ln {\frac {P(H,V)}{Q(H)}}-\ln {\frac {P(H|V)}{Q(H)}}{\Bigg ]}} . So, if we define our lower bound to be L ( Q ) = ∑ H Q ( H ) ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) Q ( H ) {\displaystyle L(Q)=\sum _{H}Q(H)\ln {\frac {P(H,V)}{Q(H)}}} , then the likelihood is simply this bound plus the relative entropy between P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} . Because the relative entropy is non-negative, the function L {\displaystyle L} defined above is indeed a lower bound of the log likelihood of our observation V {\displaystyle V} . The distribution Q {\displaystyle Q} will have a simpler character than that of P {\displaystyle P} because marginalizing over P {\displaystyle P} is intractable for all but the simplest of graphical models. In particular, VMP uses a factorized distribution Q ( H ) = ∏ i Q i ( H i ) , {\displaystyle Q(H)=\prod _{i}Q_{i}(H_{i}),} where H i {\displaystyle H_{i}} is a disjoint part of the graphical model. == Determining the update rule == The likelihood estimate needs to be as large as possible; because it's a lower bound, getting closer log ⁡ P {\displaystyle \log P} improves the approximation of the log likelihood. By substituting in the factorized version of Q {\displaystyle Q} , L ( Q ) {\displaystyle L(Q)} , parameterized over the hidden nodes H i {\displaystyle H_{i}} as above, is simply the negative relative entropy between Q j {\displaystyle Q_{j}} and Q j ∗ {\displaystyle Q_{j}^{}} plus other terms independent of Q j {\displaystyle Q_{j}} if Q j ∗ {\displaystyle Q_{j}^{}} is defined as Q j ∗ ( H j ) = 1 Z e E − j { ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) } {\displaystyle Q_{j}^{}(H_{j})={\frac {1}{Z}}e^{\mathbb {E} _{-j}\{\ln P(H,V)\}}} , where E − j { ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) } {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{-j}\{\ln P(H,V)\}} is the expectation over all distributions Q i {\displaystyle Q_{i}} except Q j {\displaystyle Q_{j}} . Thus, if we set Q j {\displaystyle Q_{j}} to be Q j ∗ {\displaystyle Q_{j}^{}} , the bound L {\displaystyle L} is maximized. == Messages in variational message passing == Parents send their children the expectation of their sufficient statistic while children send their parents their natural parameter, which also requires messages to be sent from the co-parents of the node. == Relationship to exponential families == Because all nodes in VMP come from exponential families and all parents of nodes are conjugate to their children nodes, the expectation of the sufficient statistic can be computed from the normalization factor. == VMP algorithm == The algorithm begins by computing the expected value of the sufficient statistics for that vector. Then, until the likelihood converges to a stable value (this is usually accomplished by setting a small threshold value and running the algorithm until it increases by less than that threshold value), do the following at each node: Get all messages from parents. Get all messages from children (this might require the children to get messages from the co-parents). Compute the expected value of the nodes sufficient statistics. == Constraints == Because every child must be conjugate to its parent, this has limited the types of distributions that can be used in the model. For example, the parents of a Gaussian distribution must be a Gaussian distribution (corresponding to the Mean) and a gamma distribution (corresponding to the precision, or one over σ {\displaystyle \sigma } in more common parameterizations). Discrete variables can have Dirichlet parents, and Poisson and exponential nodes must have gamma parents. More recently, VMP has been extended to handle models that violate this conditional conjugacy constraint. == Literature == John Winn; Christopher M. Bishop (2005). "Variational Message Passing" (PDF). Journal of Machine Learning Research. 6: 661–694. ISSN 1533-7928. Wikidata Q139488859. Beal, M.J. (2003). Variational Algorithms for Approximate Bayesian Inference (PDF) (PhD). Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2005-04-28. Retrieved 2007-02-15.

  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 →
• 

  Operational taxonomic unit

  An operational taxonomic unit (OTU) is an operational definition used to classify groups of closely related individuals. The term was originally introduced in 1963 by Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath in the context of numerical taxonomy, where an "operational taxonomic unit" is simply the group of organisms currently being studied. In this sense, an OTU is a pragmatic definition to group individuals by similarity, equivalent to but not necessarily in line with classical Linnaean taxonomy or modern evolutionary taxonomy. Nowadays, however, the term is commonly used in a different context and refers to clusters of (uncultivated or unknown) organisms, grouped by DNA sequence similarity of a specific taxonomic marker gene (originally coined as mOTU; molecular OTU). In other words, OTUs are pragmatic proxies for "species" at different taxonomic levels, in the absence of traditional systems of biological classification as are available for macroscopic organisms. For several years, OTUs have been the most commonly used units of diversity, especially when analysing small subunit 16S (for prokaryotes) or 18S rRNA (for eukaryotes) marker gene sequence datasets. == Molecular OTU by clustering of marker gene sequences == In the approach represented by DNA barcoding, a particular locus is chosen to be used as the marker gene for classification. This locus should be universally present in the scope selected, variable enough to be different among close-related species, and be flanked by conservative sequences that allow for easy amplification and detection. There are databases containing sequences for such marker genes from many different species, allowing for comparison. (Sometimes only using one locus does not provide sufficient resolution, so multiple marker genes are used. This is the case for plants, where rbcL+matK is common.) Sequences obtained this way can be clustered according to their similarity to one another, and operational taxonomic units are defined based on the similarity threshold set by the researcher. The exact threshold depends on the taxa in question and the mutational rates of the selected locus in the taxon. 97–99% are commonly used, but "it is now recognized to be somewhat arbitrary as sequence variation within and among species varies across taxa". 100% similarity (fully identical) is also common, also known as single variants. It remains debatable how well this commonly used method recapitulates true microbial species phylogeny or ecology. Although OTUs can be calculated differently when using different algorithms or thresholds, research by Schmidt et al. (2014) demonstrated that 16S-derived microbial OTUs were generally ecologically consistent across habitats and several clustering approaches. The number of OTUs defined may be inflated due to errors in DNA sequencing. === OTU clustering approaches === There are three main approaches to clustering OTUs: De novo, for which the clustering is based on similarities between sequencing reads. Closed-reference, for which the clustering is performed against a reference database of sequences. Open-reference, where clustering is first performed against a reference database of sequences, then any remaining sequences that could not be mapped to the reference are clustered de novo. Using a reference provides taxonomic context for the OTUs found. Alternatively, taxonomic context can be found after the construction of clusters by comparing representative sequences from clusters against a reference database. There are also specialized classifiers for this purpose which are much faster than naive comparison using BLAST. === OTU clustering algorithms === Hierarchical clustering algorithms (HCA): uclust & cd-hit & ESPRIT Bayesian clustering: CROP == Molecular OTU by other methods == In addition to similarity-based grouping, marker gene sequences can be sorted into OTUs using molecular phylogeny, k-mer composition, or hybrid methods combining these methods with similarity. There are also Bayesian tree-less methods and machine learning approaches. Using phylogeny often involves manually assigning terminal clades or single nodes to an OTU, so this is usually only done for refinement. Genome skimming can be used to obtain high-copy DNA without the need to choose marker genes or to design PCR primers for the chosen genes. It can provide fairly good coverage of organelle DNA and repetitive elements such as ribosomal DNA, both of which can be used like marker genes in OTU analysis. Whole-genome sequencing is more expensive and involves the production and processing of more data. By considering the entire genome, many (sometimes over 100) marker genes can be used at the same time, producing highly resolved phylogenies that correctly identify problematic taxa. It is also possible to use entire genomes for OTU assignment. For example, genomes from different bacterial species almost always have an average nucleotide identity lower than 95%, a fact that can be used to define new OTUs (and likely new species).

  Read more →
• 

  Zé Delivery

  Zé Delivery is a startup developed by Brazilian drinks company AmBev which offers an app for delivering drinks. The app is available for Android and iOS. Created in 2016 by AmBev's ZX Ventures hub, the service has an international presence in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Panama and the Dominican Republic. It is also present in more than 300 Brazilian cities. Because it has an extensive category of alcoholic beverages, the service is only used by people over 18. It also offers soft drinks, juices, energy drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages.

  Read more →
• 

  Autoencoder

  An autoencoder is a type of artificial neural network used to learn efficient codings of unlabeled data (unsupervised learning). An autoencoder learns two functions: an encoding function that transforms the input data, and a decoding function that recreates the input data from the encoded representation. The autoencoder learns an efficient representation (encoding) for a set of data, typically for dimensionality reduction, to generate lower-dimensional embeddings for subsequent use by other machine learning algorithms. Variants exist which aim to make the learned representations assume useful properties. Examples are regularized autoencoders (sparse, denoising and contractive autoencoders), which are effective in learning representations for subsequent classification tasks, and variational autoencoders, which can be used as generative models. Autoencoders are applied to many problems, including facial recognition, feature detection, anomaly detection, and learning the meaning of words. In terms of data synthesis, autoencoders can also be used to randomly generate new data that is similar to the input (training) data. == Mathematical principles == === Definition === An autoencoder is defined by the following components: Two sets: the space of encoded messages Z {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Z}}} ; the space of decoded messages X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} . Typically X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} and Z {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Z}}} are Euclidean spaces, that is, X = R m , Z = R n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}=\mathbb {R} ^{m},{\mathcal {Z}}=\mathbb {R} ^{n}} with m > n . {\displaystyle m>n.} Two parametrized families of functions: the encoder family E ϕ : X → Z {\displaystyle E_{\phi }:{\mathcal {X}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {Z}}} , parametrized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } ; the decoder family D θ : Z → X {\displaystyle D_{\theta }:{\mathcal {Z}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {X}}} , parametrized by θ {\displaystyle \theta } .For any x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} , we usually write z = E ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle z=E_{\phi }(x)} , and refer to it as the code, the latent variable, latent representation, latent vector, etc. Conversely, for any z ∈ Z {\displaystyle z\in {\mathcal {Z}}} , we usually write x ′ = D θ ( z ) {\displaystyle x'=D_{\theta }(z)} , and refer to it as the (decoded) message. Usually, both the encoder and the decoder are defined as multilayer perceptrons (MLPs). For example, a one-layer-MLP encoder E ϕ {\displaystyle E_{\phi }} is: E ϕ ( x ) = σ ( W x + b ) {\displaystyle E_{\phi }(\mathbf {x} )=\sigma (Wx+b)} where σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is an element-wise activation function, W {\displaystyle W} is a "weight" matrix, and b {\displaystyle b} is a "bias" vector. === Training an autoencoder === An autoencoder, by itself, is simply a tuple of two functions. To judge its quality, we need a task. A task is defined by a reference probability distribution μ r e f {\displaystyle \mu _{ref}} over X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , and a "reconstruction quality" function d : X × X → [ 0 , ∞ ] {\displaystyle d:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to [0,\infty ]} , such that d ( x , x ′ ) {\displaystyle d(x,x')} measures how much x ′ {\displaystyle x'} differs from x {\displaystyle x} . With those, we can define the loss function for the autoencoder as L ( θ , ϕ ) := E x ∼ μ r e f [ d ( x , D θ ( E ϕ ( x ) ) ) ] {\displaystyle L(\theta ,\phi ):=\mathbb {\mathbb {E} } _{x\sim \mu _{ref}}[d(x,D_{\theta }(E_{\phi }(x)))]} The optimal autoencoder for the given task ( μ r e f , d ) {\displaystyle (\mu _{ref},d)} is then arg ⁡ min θ , ϕ L ( θ , ϕ ) {\displaystyle \arg \min _{\theta ,\phi }L(\theta ,\phi )} . The search for the optimal autoencoder can be accomplished by any mathematical optimization technique, but usually by gradient descent. This search process is referred to as "training the autoencoder". In most situations, the reference distribution is just the empirical distribution given by a dataset { x 1 , . . . , x N } ⊂ X {\displaystyle \{x_{1},...,x_{N}\}\subset {\mathcal {X}}} , so that μ r e f = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N δ x i {\displaystyle \mu _{ref}={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\delta _{x_{i}}} where δ x i {\displaystyle \delta _{x_{i}}} is the Dirac measure, the quality function is just L 2 {\displaystyle L^{2}} loss: d ( x , x ′ ) = ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle d(x,x')=\|x-x'\|_{2}^{2}} , and ‖ ⋅ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{2}} is the Euclidean norm. Then the problem of searching for the optimal autoencoder is just a least-squares optimization: min θ , ϕ L ( θ , ϕ ) , where L ( θ , ϕ ) = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ‖ x i − D θ ( E ϕ ( x i ) ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{\theta ,\phi }L(\theta ,\phi ),\qquad {\text{where }}L(\theta ,\phi )={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\|x_{i}-D_{\theta }(E_{\phi }(x_{i}))\|_{2}^{2}} === Interpretation === An autoencoder has two main parts: an encoder that maps the message to a code, and a decoder that reconstructs the message from the code. An optimal autoencoder would perform as close to perfect reconstruction as possible, with "close to perfect" defined by the reconstruction quality function d {\displaystyle d} . The simplest way to perform the copying task perfectly would be to duplicate the signal. To suppress this behavior, the code space Z {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Z}}} usually has fewer dimensions than the message space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} . Such an autoencoder is called undercomplete. It can be interpreted as compressing the message, or reducing its dimensionality. At the limit of an ideal undercomplete autoencoder, every possible code z {\displaystyle z} in the code space is used to encode a message x {\displaystyle x} that really appears in the distribution μ r e f {\displaystyle \mu _{ref}} , and the decoder is also perfect: D θ ( E ϕ ( x ) ) = x {\displaystyle D_{\theta }(E_{\phi }(x))=x} . This ideal autoencoder can then be used to generate messages indistinguishable from real messages, by feeding its decoder arbitrary code z {\displaystyle z} and obtaining D θ ( z ) {\displaystyle D_{\theta }(z)} , which is a message that really appears in the distribution μ r e f {\displaystyle \mu _{ref}} . If the code space Z {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Z}}} has dimension larger than (overcomplete), or equal to, the message space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , or the hidden units are given enough capacity, an autoencoder can learn the identity function and become useless. However, experimental results found that overcomplete autoencoders might still learn useful features. In the ideal setting, the code dimension and the model capacity could be set on the basis of the complexity of the data distribution to be modeled. A standard way to do so is to add modifications to the basic autoencoder, to be detailed below. == Variations == === Variational autoencoder (VAE) === Variational autoencoders (VAEs) belong to the families of variational Bayesian methods. Despite the architectural similarities with basic autoencoders, VAEs are architected with different goals and have a different mathematical formulation. The latent space is, in this case, composed of a mixture of distributions instead of fixed vectors. Given an input dataset x {\displaystyle x} characterized by an unknown probability function P ( x ) {\displaystyle P(x)} and a multivariate latent encoding vector z {\displaystyle z} , the objective is to model the data as a distribution p θ ( x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } defined as the set of the network parameters so that p θ ( x ) = ∫ z p θ ( x , z ) d z {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\int _{z}p_{\theta }(x,z)dz} . === Sparse autoencoder (SAE) === Inspired by the sparse coding hypothesis in neuroscience, sparse autoencoders (SAE) are variants of autoencoders, such that the codes E ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\phi }(x)} for messages tend to be sparse codes, that is, E ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\phi }(x)} is close to zero in most entries. Sparse autoencoders may include more (rather than fewer) hidden units than inputs, but only a small number of the hidden units are allowed to be active at the same time. Encouraging sparsity improves performance on classification tasks. There are two main ways to enforce sparsity. One way is to simply clamp all but the highest-k activations of the latent code to zero. This is the k-sparse autoencoder. The k-sparse autoencoder inserts the following "k-sparse function" in the latent layer of a standard autoencoder: f k ( x 1 , . . . , x n ) = ( x 1 b 1 , . . . , x n b n ) {\displaystyle f_{k}(x_{1},...,x_{n})=(x_{1}b_{1},...,x_{n}b_{n})} where b i = 1 {\displaystyle b_{i}=1} if | x i | {\displaystyle |x_{i}|} ranks in the top k, and 0 otherwise. Backpropagating through f k {\displaystyle f_{k}} is simple: set gradient to 0 for b i = 0 {\displaystyle b_{i}=0} entries, and keep gradient for b i = 1 {\displaystyle b_{i}=1} entries. This is essentially a generalized ReLU function. The other way is a relaxed version of the k-

  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 →