AI Email Plugin For Outlook

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

• 

  Apache Parquet

  Apache Parquet is a free and open-source column-oriented data storage format in the Apache Hadoop ecosystem inspired by Google Dremel interactive ad-hoc query system for analysis of read-only nested data. It is similar to RCFile and ORC, the other columnar-storage file formats in Hadoop, and is compatible with most of the data processing frameworks around Hadoop. It provides data compression and encoding schemes with enhanced performance to handle complex data in bulk. == History == The open-source project to build Apache Parquet began as a joint effort between Twitter and Cloudera using the record shredding and assembly algorithm as described in Google's Dremel. Parquet was designed as an improvement on the Trevni columnar storage format created by Doug Cutting, the creator of Hadoop. The name 'parquet' (lit. 'small compartment') refers to a style of decorative flooring and was chosen to "evoke the bottom layer of a database with an interesting layout". The first version, Apache Parquet 1.0, was released in July 2013. Since April 27, 2015, Apache Parquet has been a top-level Apache Software Foundation (ASF)-sponsored project. == Features == Apache Parquet is implemented using the record-shredding and assembly algorithm, which accommodates the complex data structures that can be used to store data. The values in each column are stored in contiguous memory locations, providing the following benefits: Column-wise compression is efficient in storage space Encoding and compression techniques specific to the type of data in each column can be used Queries that fetch specific column values need not read the entire row, thus improving performance Apache Parquet is implemented using the Apache Thrift framework, which increases its flexibility; it can work with a number of programming languages like C++, Java, Python, PHP, etc. As of August 2015, Parquet supports the big-data-processing frameworks including Apache Hive, Apache Drill, Apache Impala, Apache Crunch, Apache Pig, Cascading, Presto and Apache Spark. It is one of the external data formats used by the pandas Python data manipulation and analysis library. == Compression and encoding == In Parquet, compression is performed column by column, which enables different encoding schemes to be used for text and integer data. This strategy also keeps the door open for newer and better encoding schemes to be implemented as they are invented. Parquet supports various compression formats: snappy, gzip, LZO, brotli, zstd, and LZ4. === Dictionary encoding === Parquet has an automatic dictionary encoding enabled dynamically for data with a small number of unique values (i.e. below 105) that enables significant compression and boosts processing speed. === Bit packing === Storage of integers is usually done with dedicated 32 or 64 bits per integer. For small integers, packing multiple integers into the same space makes storage more efficient. === Run-length encoding (RLE) === To optimize storage of multiple occurrences of the same value, run-length encoding is used, which is where a single value is stored once along with the number of occurrences. Parquet implements a hybrid of bit packing and RLE, in which the encoding switches based on which produces the best compression results. This strategy works well for certain types of integer data and combines well with dictionary encoding. == Cloud Storage and Data Lakes == Parquet is widely used as the underlying file format in modern cloud-based data lake architectures. Cloud storage systems such as Amazon S3, Azure Data Lake Storage, and Google Cloud Storage commonly store data in Parquet format due to its efficient columnar representation and retrieval capabilities. Data lakehouse frameworks—including Apache Iceberg, Delta Lake, and Apache Hudi —build an additional metadata layer on top of Parquet files to support features such as schema evolution, time-travel queries, and ACID-compliant transactions. In these architectures, Parquet files serve as the immutable storage layer while the table formats manage data versioning and transactional integrity. == Comparison == Apache Parquet is comparable to RCFile and Optimized Row Columnar (ORC) file formats — all three fall under the category of columnar data storage within the Hadoop ecosystem. They all have better compression and encoding with improved read performance at the cost of slower writes. In addition to these features, Apache Parquet supports limited schema evolution, i.e., the schema can be modified according to the changes in the data. It also provides the ability to add new columns and merge schemas that do not conflict. Apache Arrow is designed as an in-memory complement to on-disk columnar formats like Parquet and ORC. The Arrow and Parquet projects include libraries that allow for reading and writing between the two formats. == Implementations == Known implementations of Parquet include:

  Read more →
• 

  Quantum neural network

  Quantum neural networks are computational neural network models which are based on the principles of quantum mechanics. The first ideas on quantum neural computation were published independently in 1995 by Subhash Kak and Ron Chrisley, engaging with the theory of quantum mind, which posits that quantum effects play a role in cognitive function. However, typical research in quantum neural networks involves combining classical artificial neural network models (which are widely used in machine learning for the important task of pattern recognition) with the advantages of quantum information in order to develop more efficient algorithms. One important motivation for these investigations is the difficulty to train classical neural networks, especially in big data applications. The hope is that features of quantum computing such as quantum parallelism or the effects of interference and entanglement can be used as resources. Since the technological implementation of a quantum computer is still in a premature stage, such quantum neural network models are mostly theoretical proposals that await their full implementation in physical experiments. Most Quantum neural networks are developed as feed-forward networks. Similar to their classical counterparts, this structure intakes input from one layer of qubits, and passes that input onto another layer of qubits. This layer of qubits evaluates this information and passes on the output to the next layer. Eventually the path leads to the final layer of qubits. The layers do not have to be of the same width, meaning they don't have to have the same number of qubits as the layer before or after it. This structure is trained on which path to take similar to classical artificial neural networks. This is discussed in a lower section. Quantum neural networks refer to three different categories: Quantum computer with classical data, classical computer with quantum data, and quantum computer with quantum data. == Examples == Quantum neural network research is still in its infancy, and a conglomeration of proposals and ideas of varying scope and mathematical rigor have been put forward. Most of them are based on the idea of replacing classical binary or McCulloch-Pitts neurons with a qubit (which can be called a "quron"), resulting in neural units that can be in a superposition of the state 'firing' and 'resting'. === Quantum perceptrons === A lot of proposals attempt to find a quantum equivalent for the perceptron unit from which neural nets are constructed. A problem is that nonlinear activation functions do not immediately correspond to the mathematical structure of quantum theory, since a quantum evolution is described by linear operations and leads to probabilistic observation. Ideas to imitate the perceptron activation function with a quantum mechanical formalism reach from special measurements to postulating non-linear quantum operators (a mathematical framework that is disputed). A direct implementation of the activation function using the circuit-based model of quantum computation has recently been proposed by Schuld, Sinayskiy and Petruccione based on the quantum phase estimation algorithm. === Quantum networks === At a larger scale, researchers have attempted to generalize neural networks to the quantum setting. One way of constructing a quantum neuron is to first generalise classical neurons and then generalising them further to make unitary gates. Interactions between neurons can be controlled quantumly, with unitary gates, or classically, via measurement of the network states. This high-level theoretical technique can be applied broadly, by taking different types of networks and different implementations of quantum neurons, such as photonically implemented neurons and quantum reservoir processor (quantum version of reservoir computing). Most learning algorithms follow the classical model of training an artificial neural network to learn the input-output function of a given training set and use classical feedback loops to update parameters of the quantum system until they converge to an optimal configuration. Learning as a parameter optimisation problem has also been approached by adiabatic models of quantum computing. Quantum neural networks can be applied to algorithmic design: given qubits with tunable mutual interactions, one can attempt to learn interactions following the classical backpropagation rule from a training set of desired input-output relations, taken to be the desired output algorithm's behavior. The quantum network thus 'learns' an algorithm. === Quantum associative memory === The first quantum associative memory algorithm was introduced by Dan Ventura and Tony Martinez in 1999. The authors do not attempt to translate the structure of artificial neural network models into quantum theory, but propose an algorithm for a circuit-based quantum computer that simulates associative memory. The memory states (in Hopfield neural networks saved in the weights of the neural connections) are written into a superposition, and a Grover-like quantum search algorithm retrieves the memory state closest to a given input. As such, this is not a fully content-addressable memory, since only incomplete patterns can be retrieved. The first truly content-addressable quantum memory, which can retrieve patterns also from corrupted inputs, was proposed by Carlo A. Trugenberger. Both memories can store an exponential (in terms of n qubits) number of patterns but can be used only once due to the no-cloning theorem and their destruction upon measurement. Trugenberger, however, has shown that his probabilistic model of quantum associative memory can be efficiently implemented and re-used multiples times for any polynomial number of stored patterns, a large advantage with respect to classical associative memories. === Classical neural networks inspired by quantum theory === A substantial amount of interest has been given to a "quantum-inspired" model that uses ideas from quantum theory to implement a neural network based on fuzzy logic. == Training == Quantum Neural Networks can be theoretically trained similarly to training classical/artificial neural networks. A key difference lies in communication between the layers of a neural networks. For classical neural networks, at the end of a given operation, the current perceptron copies its output to the next layer of perceptron(s) in the network. However, in a quantum neural network, where each perceptron is a qubit, this would violate the no-cloning theorem. A proposed generalized solution to this is to replace the classical fan-out method with an arbitrary unitary that spreads out, but does not copy, the output of one qubit to the next layer of qubits. Using this fan-out Unitary ( U f {\displaystyle U_{f}} ) with a dummy state qubit in a known state (Ex. | 0 ⟩ {\displaystyle |0\rangle } in the computational basis), also known as an Ancilla bit, the information from the qubit can be transferred to the next layer of qubits. This process adheres to the quantum operation requirement of reversibility. Using this quantum feed-forward network, deep neural networks can be executed and trained efficiently. A deep neural network is essentially a network with many hidden-layers, as seen in the sample model neural network above. Since the Quantum neural network being discussed uses fan-out Unitary operators, and each operator only acts on its respective input, only two layers are used at any given time. In other words, no Unitary operator is acting on the entire network at any given time, meaning the number of qubits required for a given step depends on the number of inputs in a given layer. Since Quantum Computers are notorious for their ability to run multiple iterations in a short period of time, the efficiency of a quantum neural network is solely dependent on the number of qubits in any given layer, and not on the depth of the network. === Cost functions === To determine the effectiveness of a neural network, a cost function is used, which essentially measures the proximity of the network's output to the expected or desired output. In a Classical Neural Network, the weights ( w {\displaystyle w} ) and biases ( b {\displaystyle b} ) at each step determine the outcome of the cost function C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} . When training a Classical Neural network, the weights and biases are adjusted after each iteration, and given equation 1 below, where y ( x ) {\displaystyle y(x)} is the desired output and a out ( x ) {\displaystyle a^{\text{out}}(x)} is the actual output, the cost function is optimized when C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} = 0. For a quantum neural network, the cost function is determined by measuring the fidelity of the outcome state ( ρ out {\displaystyle \rho ^{\text{out}}} ) with the desired outcome state ( ϕ out {\displaystyle \phi ^{\text{out}}} ), seen in Equation 2 below. In this case, the Unitary operators are adjusted after each it

  Read more →
• 

  Automated Pain Recognition

  Automated Pain Recognition (APR) is a method for objectively measuring pain and at the same time represents an interdisciplinary research area that comprises elements of medicine, psychology, psychobiology, and computer science. The focus is on computer-aided objective recognition of pain, implemented on the basis of machine learning. Automated pain recognition allows for the valid, reliable detection and monitoring of pain in people who are unable to communicate verbally. The underlying machine learning processes are trained and validated in advance by means of unimodal or multimodal body signals. Signals used to detect pain may include facial expressions or gestures and may also be of a (psycho-)physiological or paralinguistic nature. To date, the focus has been on identifying pain intensity, but visionary efforts are also being made to recognize the quality, site, and temporal course of pain. However, the clinical implementation of this approach is a controversial topic in the field of pain research. Critics of automated pain recognition argue that pain diagnosis can only be performed subjectively by humans. == Background == Pain diagnosis under conditions where verbal reporting is restricted - such as in verbally and/or cognitively impaired people or in patients who are sedated or mechanically ventilated - is based on behavioral observations by trained professionals. However, all known observation procedures (e.g., Zurich Observation Pain Assessment (ZOPA)); Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale (PAINAD) require a great deal of specialist expertise. These procedures can be made more difficult by perception- and interpretation-related misjudgments on the part of the observer. With regard to the differences in design, methodology, evaluation sample, and conceptualization of the phenomenon of pain, it is difficult to compare the quality criteria of the various tools. Even if trained personnel could theoretically record pain intensity several times a day using observation instruments, it would not be possible to measure it every minute or second. In this respect, the goal of automated pain recognition is to use valid, robust pain response patterns that can be recorded multimodally for a temporally dynamic, high-resolution, automated pain intensity recognition system. == Procedure == For automated pain recognition, pain-relevant parameters are usually recorded using non-invasive sensor technology, which captures data on the (physical) responses of the person in pain. This can be achieved with camera technology that captures facial expressions, gestures, or posture, while audio sensors record paralinguistic features. (Psycho-)physiological information such as muscle tone and heart rate can be collected via biopotential sensors (electrodes). Pain recognition requires the extraction of meaningful characteristics or patterns from the data collected. This is achieved using machine learning techniques that are able to provide an assessment of the pain after training (learning), e.g., "no pain," "mild pain," or "severe pain." == Parameters == Although the phenomenon of pain comprises different components (sensory discriminative, affective (emotional), cognitive, vegetative, and (psycho-)motor), automated pain recognition currently relies on the measurable parameters of pain responses. These can be divided roughly into the two main categories of "physiological responses" and "behavioral responses". === Physiological responses === In humans, pain almost always initiates autonomic nervous processes that are reflected measurably in various physiological signals. ==== Physiological signals ==== Measurements can include electrodermal activity (EDA, also skin conductance), electromyography (EMG), electrocardiogram (ECG), blood volume pulse (BVP), electroencephalogram (EEG), respiration, and body temperature, which are regulatory mechanisms of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. Physiological signals are mainly recorded using special non-invasive surface electrodes (for EDA, EMG, ECG, and EEG), a blood volume pulse sensor (BVP), a respiratory belt (respiration), and a thermal sensor (body temperature). Endocrinological and immunological parameters can also be recorded, but this requires measures that are somewhat invasive (e.g., blood sampling). === Behavioral responses === Behavioral responses to pain fulfil two functions: protection of the body (e.g., through protective reflexes) and external communication of the pain (e.g., as a cry for help). The responses are particularly evident in facial expressions, gestures, and paralinguistic features. ==== Facial expressions ==== Behavioral signals captured comprise facial expression patterns (expressive behavior), which are measured with the aid of video signals. Facial expression recognition is based on the everyday clinical observation that pain often manifests itself in the patient's facial expressions but that this is not necessarily always the case, since facial expressions can be inhibited through self-control. Despite the possibility that facial expressions may be influenced consciously, facial expression behavior represents an essential source of information for pain diagnosis and is thus also a source of information for automatic pain recognition. One advantage of video-based facial expression recognition is the contact-free measurement of the face, provided that it can be captured on video, which is not possible in every position (e.g., lying face down) or may be limited by bandages covering the face. Facial expression analysis relies on rapid, spontaneous, and temporary changes in neuromuscular activity that lead to visually detectable changes in the face. ==== Gestures ==== Gestures are also captured predominantly using non-contact camera technology. Motor pain responses vary and are strongly dependent on the type and cause of the pain. They range from abrupt protective reflexes (e.g., spontaneous retraction of extremities or doubling up) to agitation (pathological restlessness) and avoidance behavior (hesitant, cautious movements). ==== Paralinguistic features of language ==== Among other things, pain leads to nonverbal linguistic behavior that manifests itself in sounds such as sighing, gasping, moaning, whining, etc. Paralinguistic features are usually recorded using highly sensitive microphones. == Algorithms == After the recording, pre-processing (e.g., filtering), and extraction of relevant features, an optional information fusion can be performed. During this process, modalities from different signal sources are merged to generate new or more precise knowledge. The pain is classified using machine learning processes. The method chosen has a significant influence on the recognition rate and depends greatly on the quality and granularity of the underlying data. Similar to the field of affective computing, the following classifiers are currently being used: Support Vector Machine (SVM): The goal of an SVM is to find a clearly defined optimal hyperplane with the greatest minimal distance to two (or more) classes to be separated. The hyperplane acts as a decision function for classifying an unknown pattern. Random Forest (RF): RF is based on the composition of random, uncorrelated decision trees. An unknown pattern is judged individually by each tree and assigned to a class. The final classification of the patterns by the RF is then based on a majority decision. k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN): The k-NN algorithm classifies an unknown object using the class label that most commonly classifies the k neighbors closest to it. Its neighbors are determined using a selected similarity measure (e.g., Euclidean distance, Jaccard coefficient, etc.). Artificial neural networks (ANNs): ANNs are inspired by biological neural networks and model their organizational principles and processes in a very simplified manner. Class patterns are learned by adjusting the weights of the individual neuronal connections. == Databases == In order to classify pain in a valid manner, it is necessary to create representative, reliable, and valid pain databases that are available to the machine learner for training. An ideal database would be sufficiently large and would consist of natural (not experimental), high-quality pain responses. However, natural responses are difficult to record and can only be obtained to a limited extent; in most cases they are characterized by suboptimal quality. The databases currently available therefore contain experimental or quasi-experimental pain responses, and each database is based on a different pain model. The following list shows a selection of the most relevant pain databases (last updated: April 2020): UNBC-McMaster Shoulder Pain BioVid Heat Pain EmoPain SenseEmotion X-ITE Pain

  Read more →
• 

  KXEN Inc.

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

  Read more →
• 

  Kernel embedding of distributions

  In machine learning, the kernel embedding of distributions (also called the kernel mean or mean map) comprises a class of nonparametric methods in which a probability distribution is represented as an element of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). A generalization of the individual data-point feature mapping done in classical kernel methods, the embedding of distributions into infinite-dimensional feature spaces can preserve all of the statistical features of arbitrary distributions, while allowing one to compare and manipulate distributions using Hilbert space operations such as inner products, distances, projections, linear transformations, and spectral analysis. This learning framework is very general and can be applied to distributions over any space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } on which a sensible kernel function (measuring similarity between elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } ) may be defined. For example, various kernels have been proposed for learning from data which are: vectors in R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , discrete classes/categories, strings, graphs/networks, images, time series, manifolds, dynamical systems, and other structured objects. The theory behind kernel embeddings of distributions has been primarily developed by Alex Smola, Le Song, Arthur Gretton, and Bernhard Schölkopf. A review of recent works on kernel embedding of distributions can be found in. The analysis of distributions is fundamental in machine learning and statistics, and many algorithms in these fields rely on information theoretic approaches such as entropy, mutual information, or Kullback–Leibler divergence. However, to estimate these quantities, one must first either perform density estimation, or employ sophisticated space-partitioning/bias-correction strategies which are typically infeasible for high-dimensional data. Commonly, methods for modeling complex distributions rely on parametric assumptions that may be unfounded or computationally challenging (e.g. Gaussian mixture models), while nonparametric methods like kernel density estimation (Note: the smoothing kernels in this context have a different interpretation than the kernels discussed here) or characteristic function representation (via the Fourier transform of the distribution) break down in high-dimensional settings. Methods based on the kernel embedding of distributions sidestep these problems and also possess the following advantages: Data may be modeled without restrictive assumptions about the form of the distributions and relationships between variables Intermediate density estimation is not needed Practitioners may specify the properties of a distribution most relevant for their problem (incorporating prior knowledge via choice of the kernel) If a characteristic kernel is used, then the embedding can uniquely preserve all information about a distribution, while thanks to the kernel trick, computations on the potentially infinite-dimensional RKHS can be implemented in practice as simple Gram matrix operations Dimensionality-independent rates of convergence for the empirical kernel mean (estimated using samples from the distribution) to the kernel embedding of the true underlying distribution can be proven. Learning algorithms based on this framework exhibit good generalization ability and finite sample convergence, while often being simpler and more effective than information theoretic methods Thus, learning via the kernel embedding of distributions offers a principled drop-in replacement for information theoretic approaches and is a framework which not only subsumes many popular methods in machine learning and statistics as special cases, but also can lead to entirely new learning algorithms. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle X} denote a random variable with domain Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } and distribution P {\displaystyle P} . Given a symmetric, positive-definite kernel k : Ω × Ω → R {\displaystyle k:\Omega \times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R} } the Moore–Aronszajn theorem asserts the existence of a unique RKHS H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } (a Hilbert space of functions f : Ω → R {\displaystyle f:\Omega \to \mathbb {R} } equipped with an inner product ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ H {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} and a norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{\mathcal {H}}} ) for which k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, i.e., in which the element k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle k(x,\cdot )} satisfies the reproducing property ⟨ f , k ( x , ⋅ ) ⟩ H = f ( x ) ∀ f ∈ H , ∀ x ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle \langle f,k(x,\cdot )\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=f(x)\qquad \forall f\in {\mathcal {H}},\quad \forall x\in \Omega .} One may alternatively consider x ↦ k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto k(x,\cdot )} as an implicit feature mapping φ : Ω → H {\displaystyle \varphi :\Omega \rightarrow {\mathcal {H}}} (which is therefore also called the feature space), so that k ( x , x ′ ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ H {\displaystyle k(x,x')=\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (x')\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} can be viewed as a measure of similarity between points x , x ′ ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle x,x'\in \Omega .} While the similarity measure is linear in the feature space, it may be highly nonlinear in the original space depending on the choice of kernel. === Kernel embedding === The kernel embedding of the distribution P {\displaystyle P} in H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} (also called the kernel mean or mean map) is given by: μ X := E [ k ( X , ⋅ ) ] = E [ φ ( X ) ] = ∫ Ω φ ( x ) d P ( x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{X}:=\mathbb {E} [k(X,\cdot )]=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)]=\int _{\Omega }\varphi (x)\ \mathrm {d} P(x)} If P {\displaystyle P} allows a square integrable density p {\displaystyle p} , then μ X = E k p {\displaystyle \mu _{X}={\mathcal {E}}_{k}p} , where E k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{k}} is the Hilbert–Schmidt integral operator. A kernel is characteristic if the mean embedding μ : { family of distributions over Ω } → H {\displaystyle \mu :\{{\text{family of distributions over }}\Omega \}\to {\mathcal {H}}} is injective. Each distribution can thus be uniquely represented in the RKHS and all statistical features of distributions are preserved by the kernel embedding if a characteristic kernel is used. === Empirical kernel embedding === Given n {\displaystyle n} training examples { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} drawn independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) from P , {\displaystyle P,} the kernel embedding of P {\displaystyle P} can be empirically estimated as μ ^ X = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mu }}_{X}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})} === Joint distribution embedding === If Y {\displaystyle Y} denotes another random variable (for simplicity, assume the co-domain of Y {\displaystyle Y} is also Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } with the same kernel k {\displaystyle k} which satisfies ⟨ φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⊗ φ ( y ′ ) ⟩ = k ( x , x ′ ) k ( y , y ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle \varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y),\varphi (x')\otimes \varphi (y')\rangle =k(x,x')k(y,y')} ), then the joint distribution P ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle P(x,y))} can be mapped into a tensor product feature space H ⊗ H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}} via C X Y = E [ φ ( X ) ⊗ φ ( Y ) ] = ∫ Ω × Ω φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)\otimes \varphi (Y)]=\int _{\Omega \times \Omega }\varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y)\ \mathrm {d} P(x,y)} By the equivalence between a tensor and a linear map, this joint embedding may be interpreted as an uncentered cross-covariance operator C X Y : H → H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} from which the cross-covariance of functions f , g ∈ H {\displaystyle f,g\in {\mathcal {H}}} can be computed as Cov ⁡ ( f ( X ) , g ( Y ) ) := E [ f ( X ) g ( Y ) ] − E [ f ( X ) ] E [ g ( Y ) ] = ⟨ f , C X Y g ⟩ H = ⟨ f ⊗ g , C X Y ⟩ H ⊗ H {\displaystyle \operatorname {Cov} (f(X),g(Y)):=\mathbb {E} [f(X)g(Y)]-\mathbb {E} [f(X)]\mathbb {E} [g(Y)]=\langle f,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}g\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=\langle f\otimes g,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}\rangle _{{\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}}} Given n {\displaystyle n} pairs of training examples { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} drawn i.i.d. from P {\displaystyle P} , we can also empirically estimate the joint distribution kernel embedding via C ^ X Y = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) ⊗ φ ( y i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mathcal {C}}}_{XY}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})\otimes \varphi (y_{i})} === Conditional distribution embedding === Given a conditional distribution P ( y ∣ x ) , {\displaystyle P(y\mid x),} one can define the corresponding RKHS embedding as μ Y ∣ x = E [ φ ( Y ) ∣ X ] = ∫ Ω φ ( y ) d P ( y ∣ x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{Y\mid x}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (Y)\mid X]=\int _{\Omega

  Read more →
• 

  Structured kNN

  Structured k-nearest neighbours (SkNN) is a machine learning algorithm that generalizes k-nearest neighbors (k-NN). k-NN supports binary classification, multiclass classification, and regression, whereas SkNN allows training of a classifier for general structured output. For instance, a data sample might be a natural language sentence, and the output could be an annotated parse tree. Training a classifier consists of showing many instances of ground truth sample-output pairs. After training, the SkNN model is able to predict the corresponding output for new, unseen sample instances; that is, given a natural language sentence, the classifier can produce the most likely parse tree. == Training == As a training set, SkNN accepts sequences of elements with class labels. The type of element does not matter; the only requirement is a defined metric function that gives a distance between each pair of elements of a set. SkNN is based on idea of creating a graph, with each node representing a class label. There is an edge between a pair of nodes if there is a sequence of two elements in the training set with corresponding classes. The first step of SkNN training is the construction of such a graph from training sequences. There are two special nodes in the graph corresponding to sentence beginnings and ends: if a sequence starts with class C, the edge between node START and node C should be created. Like regular k-NN, the second part of SkNN training consists of storing the elements of a training sequence in a certain way. Each element of the training sequences is stored in the node related to the class of the previous element in the sequence. Every first element is stored in the START node. == Inference == Labelling input sequences by SkNN consists of finding the sequence of transitions in the graph, starting from node START. Each transition corresponds to a single element of the input sequence. As a result, the label of each element is determined as the target node label of the transition. The cost of the path is defined as the sum of all transitions, with the cost of transition from node A to node B being the distance from the current input sequence element to the nearest element of class B, stored in node A. Determining an optimal path may be performed using a modified Viterbi algorithm (where the sum of the distances is minimized, unlike the original algorithm which maximizes the product of probabilities).

  Read more →
• 

  NOMINATE (scaling method)

  NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress

  Read more →
• 

  Hinge loss

  In machine learning, the hinge loss is a loss function used for training classifiers. The hinge loss is used for "maximum-margin" classification, most notably for support vector machines (SVMs). For an intended output t = ±1 and a classifier score y, the hinge loss of the prediction y is defined as ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , 1 − t ⋅ y ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\max(0,1-t\cdot y)} Note that y {\displaystyle y} should be the "raw" output of the classifier's decision function, not the predicted class label. For instance, in linear SVMs, y = w ⋅ x + b {\displaystyle y=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} +b} , where ( w , b ) {\displaystyle (\mathbf {w} ,b)} are the parameters of the hyperplane and x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is the input variable(s). When t and y have the same sign (meaning y predicts the right class) and | y | ≥ 1 {\displaystyle |y|\geq 1} , the hinge loss ℓ ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ell (y)=0} . When they have opposite signs, ℓ ( y ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)} increases linearly with y, and similarly if | y | < 1 {\displaystyle |y|<1} , even if it has the same sign (correct prediction, but not by enough margin). The Hinge loss is not a proper scoring rule. == Extensions == While binary SVMs are commonly extended to multiclass classification in a one-vs.-all or one-vs.-one fashion, it is also possible to extend the hinge loss itself for such an end. Several different variations of multiclass hinge loss have been proposed. For example, Crammer and Singer defined it for a linear classifier as ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , 1 + max y ≠ t w y x − w t x ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\max(0,1+\max _{y\neq t}\mathbf {w} _{y}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {w} _{t}\mathbf {x} )} , where t {\displaystyle t} is the target label, w t {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{t}} and w y {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{y}} are the model parameters. Weston and Watkins provided a similar definition, but with a sum rather than a max: ℓ ( y ) = ∑ y ≠ t max ( 0 , 1 + w y x − w t x ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\sum _{y\neq t}\max(0,1+\mathbf {w} _{y}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {w} _{t}\mathbf {x} )} . In structured prediction, the hinge loss can be further extended to structured output spaces. Structured SVMs with margin rescaling use the following variant, where w denotes the SVM's parameters, y the SVM's predictions, φ the joint feature function, and Δ the Hamming loss: ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , Δ ( y , t ) + ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , y ) ⟩ − ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , t ) ⟩ ) = max ( 0 , max y ∈ Y ( Δ ( y , t ) + ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , y ) ⟩ ) − ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , t ) ⟩ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\ell (\mathbf {y} )&=\max(0,\Delta (\mathbf {y} ,\mathbf {t} )+\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )\rangle -\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {t} )\rangle )\\&=\max(0,\max _{y\in {\mathcal {Y}}}\left(\Delta (\mathbf {y} ,\mathbf {t} )+\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )\rangle \right)-\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {t} )\rangle )\end{aligned}}} . == Optimization == The hinge loss is a convex function, so many of the usual convex optimizers used in machine learning can work with it. It is not differentiable, but has a subgradient with respect to model parameters w of a linear SVM with score function y = w ⋅ x {\displaystyle y=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} } that is given by ∂ ℓ ∂ w i = { − t ⋅ x i if t ⋅ y < 1 , 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \ell }{\partial w_{i}}}={\begin{cases}-t\cdot x_{i}&{\text{if }}t\cdot y<1,\\0&{\text{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} However, since the derivative of the hinge loss at t y = 1 {\displaystyle ty=1} is undefined, smoothed versions may be preferred for optimization, such as Rennie and Srebro's ℓ ( y ) = { 1 2 − t y if t y ≤ 0 , 1 2 ( 1 − t y ) 2 if 0 < t y < 1 , 0 if 1 ≤ t y {\displaystyle \ell (y)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}-ty&{\text{if}}~~ty\leq 0,\\{\frac {1}{2}}(1-ty)^{2}&{\text{if}}~~0 Read more →

• 

  Logical Machine Corporation

  Logical Machine Corporation (LOMAC) was an American computer company active from the mid-1970s to the 1980s and based in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was founded as John Peers and Company by the British entrepreneur John Peers in 1974. LOMAC developed the ADAM, a minicomputer which ran a specialized compiler for the company's natural English programming language. Throughout the late 1970s, the company acquired several technology firms, including Byte, Inc., the owner of the Byte Shop retail chain. Despite its unique approach to computing and earning $5 million in revenue in 1977, LOMAC struggled as the industry began to standardize around the IBM Personal Computer (IBM PC). Following Peers's departure in 1980, the company rebranded as Logical Business Machines, Inc. (LBM, or simply Logical), and attempted to pivot toward IBM PC–compatible hardware. However, financial difficulties led to the company filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1984. After emerging from bankruptcy in 1985 with new investment, Logical ceased hardware manufacturing to focus exclusively on software development and value-added reselling. == History == John Peers (born 1942) founded Logical Machine Corporation as John Peers and Company in September 1974. The company originally occupied a 4,500-square-foot office in Burlingame, California. The company was Peers' fourth; he had recently sold off Allied Business Systems of London to Trafalgar House in 1974. Peers sought to set up manufacturing in an agricultural zone in Ukiah, California. Following a delay, caused in part by concerned residents, a 30,000-square-foot plant was raised in Burke Hill, three miles south of Ukiah. The Ukiah plant was built to mass manufacture the company's ADAM minicomputer. The ADAM computer ran a specialized compiler for the company's natural English programming language; that is to say, the programming language attempted to closely emulate English syntax. Prototypes of the ADAM were built in May 1974, based on specifications devised in October 1973. Peers had yet to patent the technology as of June 1975. The ADAM's central processing unit was bolted onto an 7-by-6-foot L-shaped desk, on which rested its terminal. Twenty units of the ADAM were installed between April 1975 and February 1976, out of a backlog of orders for 3,500 from 500 clients, manufactured out of the company's Burlingame headquarters. It cost US$40,000. A controversial print advertisement featuring a naked woman seated at an ADAM terminal—as a pastiche of Adam and Eve—was recalled in early 1976 as a result of outcry from the National Organization for Women. The company changed its name to Logical Machine Corporation (LOMAC) in October 1976 and moved its headquarters to a 26,000-square-foot building in Sunnyvale, California, in anticipation of a ramping up of orders for the ADAM. The company originally occupied half of the building; they later purchased the other half from the tenant in July 1977 to double its manufacturing output. For fiscal year 1977, the company earned $5 million in revenue. In December 1977, LOMAC acquired Byte, Inc.—the proprietor of The Byte Shop, the first computer retail chain—from Paul Terrell and Boyd Wilson for an unspecified amount. The Byte Shop had 65 locations in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1978; it catered mainly to hobbyists with low cost microcomputer kits, in contrast to the high cost of LOMAC's ADAM. By July 1978, however, LOMAC were able to reduce the price of the ADAM down to $15,000. The company by that point had shipped their 50th ADAM and expanded to 14 countries. Also in 1978, LOMAC acquired Mass Memory—a high-tech optical storage company based in Phoenix, Arizona, whose products had storage capacities on the order gigabytes and terabytes—and Centigram, makers of the Mike—a computer with speech recognition. Later that year, the company introduced Tina, a low-cost version of the ADAM. LOMAC suffered losses that year and appointed Jerry Brandt to the board of directions, naming him chief operating officer, in August 1978. Brandt had Logical absorb Mass Memory and Centigram into the parent operations, shutting down their respective plants in the process, converted 10 Byte Shops to franchises and opened 25 more franchised Byte locations, and stopped direct sales of LOMAC's business computer products. By the beginning of 1979, LOMAC was profitable once more, and Brandt was let go from LOMAC. Peers left LOMAC in 1980, following a slump in the company's sales. He became an executive director of the United States Robotics Society, a consortium for industrial automation companies, that year. Following Peers' departure, LOMAC changed its name to Logical Business Machines, adopting the name of its European subsidiary. In 1983, the company announced a 16-bit clone of the IBM PC, called the Logical L-XT, which featured a 10-MB hard drive, 320-KB floppy drive and 192 KB of RAM, and a real-time clock, and came shipped with various software (including MS-DOS, a word processor, and a spreadsheet application) and an amber CRT monitor. The following year, the company introduced L-NET, a local area network system based on the L-XT that could link up to 64 computers. L-NET came shipped with a natural programming language, Diplomat—a descendant of the programming language used on the ADAM. In June 1983, Logical sued Coleco Industries over trademark infringement with the latter's to-be-released Adam microcomputer. Logical cited confusion from their existing ADAM customer base caused by the announcement of the Coleco Adam as the basis for the suit. Coleco challenged Logical in the press, writing that Logical's rights to the Adam trademark for use in computers had lapsed earlier in the year. The two settled out of court, with Coleco agreeing to license the Adam name from Logical in exchange for unlimited rights to the Adam trademark. Logical halted development of the L-XT when they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 1984. The company had been $4 million in debt. They emerged from bankruptcy in September 1985, after being infused with $2 million from Carat Ltd. The latter immediately received a little less than 50 percent ownership in Logical—this stake set to grow to over 50 percent over the next six months. As part of the terms of exiting bankruptcy, Logical stopped manufacturing hardware and strictly became a software development company and value-added reseller of computer systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Mathematics of neural networks in machine learning

  An artificial neural network (ANN) or neural network combines biological principles with advanced statistics to solve problems in domains such as pattern recognition and game-play. ANNs adopt the basic model of neuron analogues connected to each other in a variety of ways. == Structure == === Neuron === A neuron with label j {\displaystyle j} receiving an input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} from predecessor neurons consists of the following components: an activation a j ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{j}(t)} , the neuron's state, depending on a discrete time parameter, an optional threshold θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} , which stays fixed unless changed by learning, an activation function f {\displaystyle f} that computes the new activation at a given time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} from a j ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{j}(t)} , θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} and the net input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} giving rise to the relation a j ( t + 1 ) = f ( a j ( t ) , p j ( t ) , θ j ) , {\displaystyle a_{j}(t+1)=f(a_{j}(t),p_{j}(t),\theta _{j}),} and an output function f out {\displaystyle f_{\text{out}}} computing the output from the activation o j ( t ) = f out ( a j ( t ) ) . {\displaystyle o_{j}(t)=f_{\text{out}}(a_{j}(t)).} Often the output function is simply the identity function. An input neuron has no predecessor but serves as input interface for the whole network. Similarly an output neuron has no successor and thus serves as output interface of the whole network. === Propagation function === The propagation function computes the input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} to the neuron j {\displaystyle j} from the outputs o i ( t ) {\displaystyle o_{i}(t)} and typically has the form p j ( t ) = ∑ i o i ( t ) w i j . {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)=\sum _{i}o_{i}(t)w_{ij}.} === Bias === A bias term can be added, changing the form to the following: p j ( t ) = ∑ i o i ( t ) w i j + w 0 j , {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)=\sum _{i}o_{i}(t)w_{ij}+w_{0j},} where w 0 j {\displaystyle w_{0j}} is a bias. == Neural networks as functions == Neural network models can be viewed as defining a function that takes an input (observation) and produces an output (decision) f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} or a distribution over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} or both X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} and Y {\displaystyle \textstyle Y} . Sometimes models are intimately associated with a particular learning rule. A common use of the phrase "ANN model" is really the definition of a class of such functions (where members of the class are obtained by varying parameters, connection weights, or specifics of the architecture such as the number of neurons, number of layers or their connectivity). Mathematically, a neuron's network function f ( x ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x)} is defined as a composition of other functions g i ( x ) {\displaystyle \textstyle g_{i}(x)} , that can further be decomposed into other functions. This can be conveniently represented as a network structure, with arrows depicting the dependencies between functions. A widely used type of composition is the nonlinear weighted sum, where f ( x ) = K ( ∑ i w i g i ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x)=K\left(\sum _{i}w_{i}g_{i}(x)\right)} , where K {\displaystyle \textstyle K} (commonly referred to as the activation function) is some predefined function, such as the hyperbolic tangent, sigmoid function, softmax function, or rectifier function. The important characteristic of the activation function is that it provides a smooth transition as input values change, i.e. a small change in input produces a small change in output. The following refers to a collection of functions g i {\displaystyle \textstyle g_{i}} as a vector g = ( g 1 , g 2 , … , g n ) {\displaystyle \textstyle g=(g_{1},g_{2},\ldots ,g_{n})} . This figure depicts such a decomposition of f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} , with dependencies between variables indicated by arrows. These can be interpreted in two ways. The first view is the functional view: the input x {\displaystyle \textstyle x} is transformed into a 3-dimensional vector h {\displaystyle \textstyle h} , which is then transformed into a 2-dimensional vector g {\displaystyle \textstyle g} , which is finally transformed into f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} . This view is most commonly encountered in the context of optimization. The second view is the probabilistic view: the random variable F = f ( G ) {\displaystyle \textstyle F=f(G)} depends upon the random variable G = g ( H ) {\displaystyle \textstyle G=g(H)} , which depends upon H = h ( X ) {\displaystyle \textstyle H=h(X)} , which depends upon the random variable X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . This view is most commonly encountered in the context of graphical models. The two views are largely equivalent. In either case, for this particular architecture, the components of individual layers are independent of each other (e.g., the components of g {\displaystyle \textstyle g} are independent of each other given their input h {\displaystyle \textstyle h} ). This naturally enables a degree of parallelism in the implementation. Networks such as the previous one are commonly called feedforward, because their graph is a directed acyclic graph. Networks with cycles are commonly called recurrent. Such networks are commonly depicted in the manner shown at the top of the figure, where f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} is shown as dependent upon itself. However, an implied temporal dependence is not shown. == Backpropagation == Backpropagation training algorithms fall into three categories: steepest descent (with variable learning rate and momentum, resilient backpropagation); quasi-Newton (Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno, one step secant); Levenberg–Marquardt and conjugate gradient (Fletcher–Reeves update, Polak–Ribiére update, Powell–Beale restart, scaled conjugate gradient). === Algorithm === Let N {\displaystyle N} be a network with e {\displaystyle e} connections, m {\displaystyle m} inputs and n {\displaystyle n} outputs. Below, x 1 , x 2 , … {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots } denote vectors in R m {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{m}} , y 1 , y 2 , … {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\dots } vectors in R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , and w 0 , w 1 , w 2 , … {\displaystyle w_{0},w_{1},w_{2},\ldots } vectors in R e {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{e}} . These are called inputs, outputs and weights, respectively. The network corresponds to a function y = f N ( w , x ) {\displaystyle y=f_{N}(w,x)} which, given a weight w {\displaystyle w} , maps an input x {\displaystyle x} to an output y {\displaystyle y} . In supervised learning, a sequence of training examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x p , y p ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{p},y_{p})} produces a sequence of weights w 0 , w 1 , … , w p {\displaystyle w_{0},w_{1},\dots ,w_{p}} starting from some initial weight w 0 {\displaystyle w_{0}} , usually chosen at random. These weights are computed in turn: first compute w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} using only ( x i , y i , w i − 1 ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i},w_{i-1})} for i = 1 , … , p {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,p} . The output of the algorithm is then w p {\displaystyle w_{p}} , giving a new function x ↦ f N ( w p , x ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto f_{N}(w_{p},x)} . The computation is the same in each step, hence only the case i = 1 {\displaystyle i=1} is described. w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} is calculated from ( x 1 , y 1 , w 0 ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1},w_{0})} by considering a variable weight w {\displaystyle w} and applying gradient descent to the function w ↦ E ( f N ( w , x 1 ) , y 1 ) {\displaystyle w\mapsto E(f_{N}(w,x_{1}),y_{1})} to find a local minimum, starting at w = w 0 {\displaystyle w=w_{0}} . This makes w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} the minimizing weight found by gradient descent. == Learning pseudocode == To implement the algorithm above, explicit formulas are required for the gradient of the function w ↦ E ( f N ( w , x ) , y ) {\displaystyle w\mapsto E(f_{N}(w,x),y)} where the function is E ( y , y ′ ) = | y − y ′ | 2 {\displaystyle E(y,y')=|y-y'|^{2}} . The learning algorithm can be divided into two phases: propagation and weight update. === Propagation === Propagation involves the following steps: Propagation forward through the network to generate the output value(s) Calculation of the cost (error term) Propagation of the output activations back through the network using the training pattern target to generate the deltas (the difference between the targeted and actual output values) of all output and hidden neurons. === Weight update === For each weight: Multiply the weight's output delta and input activation to find the gradient of the weight. Subtract the ratio (percentage) of the weight's gradient from the weight. The learning rate is the ratio (percentage) that influences the speed and quality of learning. The greater the ratio, the faster the neuron trains, but the lower the ratio, the more accurat

  Read more →
• 

  Modern Hopfield network

  Modern Hopfield networks (also known as Dense Associative Memories) are generalizations of the classical Hopfield networks that break the linear scaling relationship between the number of input features and the number of stored memories. This is achieved by introducing stronger non-linearities (either in the energy function or neurons’ activation functions) leading to super-linear (even an exponential) memory storage capacity as a function of the number of feature neurons. The network still requires a sufficient number of hidden neurons. The key theoretical idea behind the modern Hopfield networks is to use an energy function and an update rule that is more sharply peaked around the stored memories in the space of neuron’s configurations compared to the classical Hopfield network. == Classical Hopfield networks == Hopfield networks are recurrent neural networks with dynamical trajectories converging to fixed point attractor states and described by an energy function. The state of each model neuron i {\textstyle i} is defined by a time-dependent variable V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} , which can be chosen to be either discrete or continuous. A complete model describes the mathematics of how the future state of activity of each neuron depends on the known present or previous activity of all the neurons. In the original Hopfield model of associative memory, the variables were binary, and the dynamics were described by a one-at-a-time update of the state of the neurons. An energy function quadratic in the V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} was defined, and the dynamics consisted of changing the activity of each single neuron i {\displaystyle i} only if doing so would lower the total energy of the system. This same idea was extended to the case of V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} being a continuous variable representing the output of neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} being a monotonic function of an input current. The dynamics became expressed as a set of first-order differential equations for which the "energy" of the system always decreased. The energy in the continuous case has one term which is quadratic in the V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} (as in the binary model), and a second term which depends on the gain function (neuron's activation function). While having many desirable properties of associative memory, both of these classical systems suffer from a small memory storage capacity, which scales linearly with the number of input features. == Discrete variables == A simple example of the Modern Hopfield network can be written in terms of binary variables V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} that represent the active V i = + 1 {\displaystyle V_{i}=+1} and inactive V i = − 1 {\displaystyle V_{i}=-1} state of the model neuron i {\displaystyle i} . E = − ∑ μ = 1 N mem F ( ∑ i = 1 N f ξ μ i V i ) {\displaystyle E=-\sum \limits _{\mu =1}^{N_{\text{mem}}}F{\Big (}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N_{f}}\xi _{\mu i}V_{i}{\Big )}} In this formula the weights ξ μ i {\textstyle \xi _{\mu i}} represent the matrix of memory vectors (index μ = 1... N mem {\displaystyle \mu =1...N_{\text{mem}}} enumerates different memories, and index i = 1... N f {\displaystyle i=1...N_{f}} enumerates the content of each memory corresponding to the i {\displaystyle i} -th feature neuron), and the function F ( x ) {\displaystyle F(x)} is a rapidly growing non-linear function. The update rule for individual neurons (in the asynchronous case) can be written in the following form V i ( t + 1 ) = sign ⁡ [ ∑ μ = 1 N mem ( F ( ξ μ i + ∑ j ≠ i ξ μ j V j ( t ) ) − F ( − ξ μ i + ∑ j ≠ i ξ μ j V j ( t ) ) ) ] {\displaystyle V_{i}^{(t+1)}=\operatorname {sign} {\bigg [}\sum \limits _{\mu =1}^{N_{\text{mem}}}{\bigg (}F{\Big (}\xi _{\mu i}+\sum \limits _{j\neq i}\xi _{\mu j}V_{j}^{(t)}{\Big )}-F{\Big (}-\xi _{\mu i}+\sum \limits _{j\neq i}\xi _{\mu j}V_{j}^{(t)}{\Big )}{\bigg )}{\bigg ]}} which states that in order to calculate the updated state of the i {\textstyle i} -th neuron the network compares two energies: the energy of the network with the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron in the ON state and the energy of the network with the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron in the OFF state, given the states of the remaining neuron. The updated state of the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron selects the state that has the lowest of the two energies. In the limiting case when the non-linear energy function is quadratic F ( x ) = x 2 {\displaystyle F(x)=x^{2}} these equations reduce to the familiar energy function and the update rule for the classical binary Hopfield network. The memory storage capacity of these networks can be calculated for random binary patterns. For the power energy function F ( x ) = x n {\displaystyle F(x)=x^{n}} the maximal number of memories that can be stored and retrieved from this network without errors is given by N mem max ≈ 1 2 ( 2 n − 3 ) ! ! N f n − 1 ln ⁡ ( N f ) {\displaystyle N_{\text{mem}}^{\max }\approx {\frac {1}{2(2n-3)!!}}{\frac {N_{f}^{n-1}}{\ln(N_{f})}}} For an exponential energy function F ( x ) = e x {\textstyle F(x)=e^{x}} the memory storage capacity is exponential in the number of feature neurons N mem max ≈ 2 N f / 2 {\displaystyle N_{\text{mem}}^{\max }\approx 2^{N_{f}/2}} == Continuous variables == Modern Hopfield networks or Dense Associative Memories can be best understood in continuous variables and continuous time. Consider the network architecture, shown in Fig.1, and the equations for the neurons' state evolutionwhere the currents of the feature neurons are denoted by x i {\textstyle x_{i}} , and the currents of the memory neurons are denoted by h μ {\displaystyle h_{\mu }} ( h {\displaystyle h} stands for hidden neurons). There are no synaptic connections among the feature neurons or the memory neurons. A matrix ξ μ i {\displaystyle \xi _{\mu i}} denotes the strength of synapses from a feature neuron i {\displaystyle i} to the memory neuron μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The synapses are assumed to be symmetric, so that the same value characterizes a different physical synapse from the memory neuron μ {\displaystyle \mu } to the feature neuron i {\displaystyle i} . The outputs of the memory neurons and the feature neurons are denoted by f μ {\displaystyle f_{\mu }} and g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} , which are non-linear functions of the corresponding currents. In general these outputs can depend on the currents of all the neurons in that layer so that f μ = f ( { h μ } ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }=f(\{h_{\mu }\})} and g i = g ( { x i } ) {\textstyle g_{i}=g(\{x_{i}\})} . It is convenient to define these activation function as derivatives of the Lagrangian functions for the two groups of neuronsThis way the specific form of the equations for neuron's states is completely defined once the Lagrangian functions are specified. Finally, the time constants for the two groups of neurons are denoted by τ f {\displaystyle \tau _{f}} and τ h {\displaystyle \tau _{h}} , I i {\displaystyle I_{i}} is the input current to the network that can be driven by the presented data. General systems of non-linear differential equations can have many complicated behaviors that can depend on the choice of the non-linearities and the initial conditions. For Hopfield networks, however, this is not the case - the dynamical trajectories always converge to a fixed point attractor state. This property is achieved because these equations are specifically engineered so that they have an underlying energy function The terms grouped into square brackets represent a Legendre transform of the Lagrangian function with respect to the states of the neurons. If the Hessian matrices of the Lagrangian functions are positive semi-definite, the energy function is guaranteed to decrease on the dynamical trajectory This property makes it possible to prove that the system of dynamical equations describing temporal evolution of neurons' activities will eventually reach a fixed point attractor state. In certain situations one can assume that the dynamics of hidden neurons equilibrates at a much faster time scale compared to the feature neurons, τ h ≪ τ f {\textstyle \tau _{h}\ll \tau _{f}} . In this case the steady state solution of the second equation in the system (1) can be used to express the currents of the hidden units through the outputs of the feature neurons. This makes it possible to reduce the general theory (1) to an effective theory for feature neurons only. The resulting effective update rules and the energies for various common choices of the Lagrangian functions are shown in Fig.2. In the case of log-sum-exponential Lagrangian function the update rule (if applied once) for the states of the feature neurons is the attention mechanism commonly used in many modern AI systems (see Ref. for the derivation of this result from the continuous time formulation). == Relationship to classical Hopfield network with continuous variables == Classical formulation of continuous Hopfield networks can be understood as a

  Read more →
• 

  Effective fitness

  In natural evolution and artificial evolution (e.g. artificial life and evolutionary computation) the fitness (or performance or objective measure) of a schema is rescaled to give its effective fitness which takes into account crossover and mutation. Effective fitness is used in Evolutionary Computation to understand population dynamics. While a biological fitness function only looks at reproductive success, an effective fitness function tries to encompass things that are needed to be fulfilled for survival on population level. In homogeneous populations, reproductive fitness and effective fitness are equal. When a population moves away from homogeneity a higher effective fitness is reached for the recessive genotype. This advantage will decrease while the population moves toward an equilibrium. The deviation from this equilibrium displays how close the population is to achieving a steady state. When this equilibrium is reached, the maximum effective fitness of the population is achieved. Problem solving with evolutionary computation is realized with a cost function. If cost functions are applied to swarm optimization they are called a fitness function. Strategies like reinforcement learning and NEAT neuroevolution are creating a fitness landscape which describes the reproductive success of cellular automata. The effective fitness function models the number of fit offspring and is used in calculations that include evolutionary processes, such as mutation and crossover, important on the population level. The effective fitness model is superior to its predecessor, the standard reproductive fitness model. It advances in the qualitatively and quantitatively understanding of evolutionary concepts like bloat, self-adaptation, and evolutionary robustness. While reproductive fitness only looks at pure selection, effective fitness describes the flow of a population and natural selection by taking genetic operators into account. A normal fitness function fits to a problem, while an effective fitness function is an assumption if the objective was reached. The difference is important for designing fitness functions with algorithms like novelty search in which the objective of the agents is unknown. In the case of bacteria effective fitness could include production of toxins and rate of mutation of different plasmids, which are mostly stochastically determined == Applications == When evolutionary equations of the studied population dynamics are available, one can algorithmically compute the effective fitness of a given population. Though the perfect effective fitness model is yet to be found, it is already known to be a good framework to the better understanding of the moving of the genotype-phenotype map, population dynamics, and the flow on fitness landscapes. Models using a combination of Darwinian fitness functions and effective functions are better at predicting population trends. Effective models could be used to determine therapeutic outcomes of disease treatment. Other models could determine effective protein engineering and works towards finding novel or heightened biochemistry.

  Read more →
• 

  Pulse-coupled networks

  Pulse-coupled networks or pulse-coupled neural networks (PCNNs) are neural models proposed by modeling a cat's visual cortex, and developed for high-performance biomimetic image processing. In 1989, Eckhorn introduced a neural model to emulate the mechanism of cat's visual cortex. The Eckhorn model provided a simple and effective tool for studying small mammal’s visual cortex, and was soon recognized as having significant application potential in image processing. In 1994, Johnson adapted the Eckhorn model to an image processing algorithm, calling this algorithm a pulse-coupled neural network. The basic property of the Eckhorn's linking-field model (LFM) is the coupling term. LFM is a modulation of the primary input by a biased offset factor driven by the linking input. These drive a threshold variable that decays from an initial high value. When the threshold drops below zero it is reset to a high value and the process starts over. This is different than the standard integrate-and-fire neural model, which accumulates the input until it passes an upper limit and effectively "shorts out" to cause the pulse. LFM uses this difference to sustain pulse bursts, something the standard model does not do on a single neuron level. It is valuable to understand, however, that a detailed analysis of the standard model must include a shunting term, due to the floating voltages level in the dendritic compartment(s), and in turn this causes an elegant multiple modulation effect that enables a true higher-order network (HON). A PCNN is a two-dimensional neural network. Each neuron in the network corresponds to one pixel in an input image, receiving its corresponding pixel's color information (e.g. intensity) as an external stimulus. Each neuron also connects with its neighboring neurons, receiving local stimuli from them. The external and local stimuli are combined in an internal activation system, which accumulates the stimuli until it exceeds a dynamic threshold, resulting in a pulse output. Through iterative computation, PCNN neurons produce temporal series of pulse outputs. The temporal series of pulse outputs contain information of input images and can be used for various image processing applications, such as image segmentation and feature generation. Compared with conventional image processing means, PCNNs have several significant merits, including robustness against noise, independence of geometric variations in input patterns, capability of bridging minor intensity variations in input patterns, etc. A simplified PCNN called a spiking cortical model was developed in 2009. == Applications == PCNNs are useful for image processing, as discussed in a book by Thomas Lindblad and Jason M. Kinser. PCNNs have been used in a variety of image processing applications, including: image segmentation, pattern recognition, feature generation, face extraction, motion detection, region growing, image denoising and image enhancement Multidimensional pulse image processing of chemical structure data using PCNN has been discussed by Kinser, et al. They have also been applied to an all pairs shortest path problem.

  Read more →
• 

  Medoid

  Medoids are representative objects of a data set or a cluster within a data set whose sum of dissimilarities to all the objects in the cluster is minimal. Medoids are similar in concept to means or centroids, but medoids are always restricted to be members of the data set. Medoids are most commonly used on data when a mean or centroid cannot be defined, such as graphs. They are also used in contexts where the centroid is not representative of the dataset like in images, 3-D trajectories and gene expression (where while the data is sparse the medoid need not be). These are also of interest while wanting to find a representative using some distance other than squared euclidean distance (for instance in movie-ratings). For some data sets there may be more than one medoid, as with medians. A common application of the medoid is the k-medoids clustering algorithm, which is similar to the k-means algorithm but works when a mean or centroid is not definable. This algorithm basically works as follows. First, a set of medoids is chosen at random. Second, the distances to the other points are computed. Third, data are clustered according to the medoid they are most similar to. Fourth, the medoid set is optimized via an iterative process. Note that a medoid is not equivalent to a median, a geometric median, or centroid. A median is only defined on 1-dimensional data, and it only minimizes dissimilarity to other points for metrics induced by a norm (such as the Manhattan distance or Euclidean distance). A geometric median is defined in any dimension, but unlike a medoid, it is not necessarily a point from within the original dataset. == Definition == Let X := { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } {\textstyle {\mathcal {X}}:=\{x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\}} be a set of n {\textstyle n} points in a space with a distance function d. Medoid is defined as x medoid = arg ⁡ min y ∈ X ∑ i = 1 n d ( y , x i ) . {\displaystyle x_{\text{medoid}}=\arg \min _{y\in {\mathcal {X}}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}d(y,x_{i}).} == Clustering with medoids == Medoids are a popular replacement for the cluster mean when the distance function is not (squared) Euclidean distance, or not even a metric (as the medoid does not require the triangle inequality). When partitioning the data set into clusters, the medoid of each cluster can be used as a representative of each cluster. Clustering algorithms based on the idea of medoids include: Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM), the standard k-medoids algorithm Hierarchical Clustering Around Medoids (HACAM), which uses medoids in hierarchical clustering == Algorithms to compute the medoid of a set == From the definition above, it is clear that the medoid of a set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} can be computed after computing all pairwise distances between points in the ensemble. This would take O ( n 2 ) {\textstyle O(n^{2})} distance evaluations (with n = | X | {\displaystyle n=|{\mathcal {X}}|} ). In the worst case, one can not compute the medoid with fewer distance evaluations. However, there are many approaches that allow us to compute medoids either exactly or approximately in sub-quadratic time under different statistical models. If the points lie on the real line, computing the medoid reduces to computing the median which can be done in O ( n ) {\textstyle O(n)} by Quick-select algorithm of Hoare. However, in higher dimensional real spaces, no linear-time algorithm is known. RAND is an algorithm that estimates the average distance of each point to all the other points by sampling a random subset of other points. It takes a total of O ( n log ⁡ n ϵ 2 ) {\textstyle O\left({\frac {n\log n}{\epsilon ^{2}}}\right)} distance computations to approximate the medoid within a factor of ( 1 + ϵ Δ ) {\textstyle (1+\epsilon \Delta )} with high probability, where Δ {\textstyle \Delta } is the maximum distance between two points in the ensemble. Note that RAND is an approximation algorithm, and moreover Δ {\textstyle \Delta } may not be known apriori. RAND was leveraged by TOPRANK which uses the estimates obtained by RAND to focus on a small subset of candidate points, evaluates the average distance of these points exactly, and picks the minimum of those. TOPRANK needs O ( n 5 3 log 4 3 ⁡ n ) {\textstyle O(n^{\frac {5}{3}}\log ^{\frac {4}{3}}n)} distance computations to find the exact medoid with high probability under a distributional assumption on the average distances. trimed presents an algorithm to find the medoid with O ( n 3 2 2 Θ ( d ) ) {\textstyle O(n^{\frac {3}{2}}2^{\Theta (d)})} distance evaluations under a distributional assumption on the points. The algorithm uses the triangle inequality to cut down the search space. Meddit leverages a connection of the medoid computation with multi-armed bandits and uses an upper-Confidence-bound type of algorithm to get an algorithm which takes O ( n log ⁡ n ) {\textstyle O(n\log n)} distance evaluations under statistical assumptions on the points. Correlated Sequential Halving also leverages multi-armed bandit techniques, improving upon Meddit. By exploiting the correlation structure in the problem, the algorithm is able to provably yield drastic improvement (usually around 1-2 orders of magnitude) in both number of distance computations needed and wall clock time. == Implementations == An implementation of RAND, TOPRANK, and trimed can be found here. An implementation of Meddit can be found here and here. An implementation of Correlated Sequential Halving can be found here. == Medoids in text and natural language processing (NLP) == Medoids can be applied to various text and NLP tasks to improve the efficiency and accuracy of analyses. By clustering text data based on similarity, medoids can help identify representative examples within the dataset, leading to better understanding and interpretation of the data. === Text clustering === Text clustering is the process of grouping similar text or documents together based on their content. Medoid-based clustering algorithms can be employed to partition large amounts of text into clusters, with each cluster represented by a medoid document. This technique helps in organizing, summarizing, and retrieving information from large collections of documents, such as in search engines, social media analytics and recommendation systems. === Text summarization === Text summarization aims to produce a concise and coherent summary of a larger text by extracting the most important and relevant information. Medoid-based clustering can be used to identify the most representative sentences in a document or a group of documents, which can then be combined to create a summary. This approach is especially useful for extractive summarization tasks, where the goal is to generate a summary by selecting the most relevant sentences from the original text. === Sentiment analysis === Sentiment analysis involves determining the sentiment or emotion expressed in a piece of text, such as positive, negative, or neutral. Medoid-based clustering can be applied to group text data based on similar sentiment patterns. By analyzing the medoid of each cluster, researchers can gain insights into the predominant sentiment of the cluster, helping in tasks such as opinion mining, customer feedback analysis, and social media monitoring. === Topic modeling === Topic modeling is a technique used to discover abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents. Medoid-based clustering can be applied to group documents with similar themes or topics. By analyzing the medoids of these clusters, researchers can gain an understanding of the underlying topics in the text corpus, facilitating tasks such as document categorization, trend analysis, and content recommendation. === Techniques for measuring text similarity in medoid-based clustering === When applying medoid-based clustering to text data, it is essential to choose an appropriate similarity measure to compare documents effectively. Each technique has its advantages and limitations, and the choice of the similarity measure should be based on the specific requirements and characteristics of the text data being analyzed. The following are common techniques for measuring text similarity in medoid-based clustering: ==== Cosine similarity ==== Cosine similarity is a widely used measure to compare the similarity between two pieces of text. It calculates the cosine of the angle between two document vectors in a high-dimensional space. Cosine similarity ranges between -1 and 1, where a value closer to 1 indicates higher similarity, and a value closer to -1 indicates lower similarity. By visualizing two lines originating from the origin and extending to the respective points of interest, and then measuring the angle between these lines, one can determine the similarity between the associated points. Cosine similarity is less affected by document length, so it may be better at producing medoids that are representative of the content of a cluster instead of the lengt

  Read more →
• 

  Randomized weighted majority algorithm

  The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an algorithm in machine learning theory for aggregating expert predictions to a series of decision problems. It is a simple and effective method based on weighted voting which improves on the mistake bound of the deterministic weighted majority algorithm. In fact, in the limit, its prediction rate can be arbitrarily close to that of the best-predicting expert. == Example == Imagine that every morning before the stock market opens, we get a prediction from each of our "experts" about whether the stock market will go up or down. Our goal is to somehow combine this set of predictions into a single prediction that we then use to make a buy or sell decision for the day. The principal challenge is that we do not know which experts will give better or worse predictions. The RWMA gives us a way to do this combination such that our prediction record will be nearly as good as that of the single expert which, in hindsight, gave the most accurate predictions. == Motivation == In machine learning, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a deterministic meta-learning algorithm for aggregating expert predictions. In pseudocode, the WMA is as follows: initialize all experts to weight 1 for each round: add each expert's weight to the option they predicted predict the option with the largest weighted sum multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} Suppose there are n {\displaystyle n} experts and the best expert makes m {\displaystyle m} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) makes at most 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ n + m ) {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}n+m)} mistakes. This bound is highly problematic in the case of highly error-prone experts. Suppose, for example, the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time; that is, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds using n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} mistakes. As this is a known limitation of the weighted majority algorithm, various strategies have been explored in order to improve the dependence on m {\displaystyle m} . In particular, we can do better by introducing randomization. Drawing inspiration from the Multiplicative Weights Update Method algorithm, we will probabilistically make predictions based on how the experts have performed in the past. Similarly to the WMA, every time an expert makes a wrong prediction, we will decrement their weight. Mirroring the MWUM, we will then use the weights to make a probability distribution over the actions and draw our action from this distribution (instead of deterministically picking the majority vote as the WMA does). == Randomized weighted majority algorithm (RWMA) == The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an attempt to improve the dependence of the mistake bound of the WMA on m {\displaystyle m} . Instead of predicting based on majority vote, the weights, are used as probabilities for choosing the experts in each round and are updated over time (hence the name randomized weighted majority). Precisely, if w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} is the weight of expert i {\displaystyle i} , let W = ∑ i w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i}w_{i}} . We will follow expert i {\displaystyle i} with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} . This results in the following algorithm: initialize all experts to weight 1. for each round: add all experts' weights together to obtain the total weight W {\displaystyle W} choose expert i {\displaystyle i} randomly with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} predict as the chosen expert predicts multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by β {\displaystyle \beta } The goal is to bound the worst-case expected number of mistakes, assuming that the adversary has to select one of the answers as correct before we make our coin toss. This is a reasonable assumption in, for instance, the stock market example provided above: the variance of a stock price should not depend on the opinions of experts that influence private buy or sell decisions, so we can treat the price change as if it was decided before the experts gave their recommendations for the day. The randomized algorithm is better in the worst case than the deterministic algorithm (weighted majority algorithm): in the latter, the worst case was when the weights were split 50/50. But in the randomized version, since the weights are used as probabilities, there would still be a 50/50 chance of getting it right. In addition, generalizing to multiplying the weights of the incorrect experts by β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} instead of strictly 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} allows us to trade off between dependence on m {\displaystyle m} and log 2 ⁡ n {\displaystyle \log _{2}n} . This trade-off will be quantified in the analysis section. == Analysis == Let W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} denote the total weight of all experts at round t {\displaystyle t} . Also let F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} denote the fraction of weight placed on experts which predict the wrong answer at round t {\displaystyle t} . Finally, let N {\displaystyle N} be the total number of rounds in the process. By definition, F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} is the probability that the algorithm makes a mistake on round t {\displaystyle t} . It follows from the linearity of expectation that if M {\displaystyle M} denotes the total number of mistakes made during the entire process, E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} . After round t {\displaystyle t} , the total weight is decreased by ( 1 − β ) F t W t {\displaystyle \ (1-\beta )F_{t}W_{t}} , since all weights corresponding to a wrong answer are multiplied by β < 1 {\displaystyle \ \beta <1} . It then follows that W t + 1 = W t ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) {\displaystyle W_{t+1}=W_{t}(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})} . By telescoping, since W 1 = n {\displaystyle W_{1}=n} , it follows that the total weight after the process concludes is On the other hand, suppose that m {\displaystyle \ m} is the number of mistakes made by the best-performing expert. At the end, this expert has weight β m {\displaystyle \ \beta ^{m}} . It follows, then, that the total weight is at least this much; in other words, W ≥ β m {\displaystyle \ W\geq \beta ^{m}} . This inequality and the above result imply Taking the natural logarithm of both sides yields Now, the Taylor series of the natural logarithm is In particular, it follows that ln ⁡ ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) < − ( 1 − β ) F t {\displaystyle \ \ln(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})<-(1-\beta )F_{t}} . Thus, Recalling that E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} and rearranging, it follows that Now, as β → 1 {\displaystyle \beta \to 1} from below, the first constant tends to 1 {\displaystyle 1} ; however, the second constant tends to + ∞ {\displaystyle +\infty } . To quantify this tradeoff, define ε = 1 − β {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1-\beta } to be the penalty associated with getting a prediction wrong. Then, again applying the Taylor series of the natural logarithm, It then follows that the mistake bound, for small ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } , can be written in the form ( 1 + ϵ 2 + O ( ε 2 ) ) m + ϵ − 1 ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ \left(1+{\frac {\epsilon }{2}}+O(\varepsilon ^{2})\right)m+\epsilon ^{-1}\ln(n)} . In English, the less that we penalize experts for their mistakes, the more that additional experts will lead to initial mistakes but the closer we get to capturing the predictive accuracy of the best expert as time goes on. In particular, given a sufficiently low value of ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and enough rounds, the randomized weighted majority algorithm can get arbitrarily close to the correct prediction rate of the best expert. In particular, as long as m {\displaystyle m} is sufficiently large compared to ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ln(n)} (so that their ratio is sufficiently small), we can assign we can obtain an upper bound on the number of mistakes equal to This implies that the "regret bound" on the algorithm (that is, how much worse it performs than the best expert) is sublinear, at O ( m ln ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O({\sqrt {m\ln(n)}})} . == Revisiting the motivation == Recall that the motivation for the randomized weighted majority algorithm was given by an example where the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time. Precisely, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds, with n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, where the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes, the deterministic weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} . By the analysis above, it follows that minimizing the number of worst-case expected mistakes is equivalent to minimizing the fun

  Read more →