AI Email Response Generator Free

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

• 

  Viewport

  A viewport is a polygon viewing region in computer graphics. In computer graphics theory, there are two region-like notions of relevance when rendering some objects to an image. In textbook terminology, the world coordinate window is the area of interest (meaning what the user wants to visualize) in some application-specific coordinates, e.g. miles, centimeters etc. The word window as used here should not be confused with the GUI window, i.e. the notion used in window managers. Rather it is an analogy with how a window limits what one can see outside a room. In contrast, the viewport is an area (typically rectangular) expressed in rendering-device-specific coordinates, e.g. pixels for screen coordinates, in which the objects of interest are going to be rendered. Clipping to the world-coordinates window is usually applied to the objects before they are passed through the window-to-viewport transformation. For a 2D object, the latter transformation is simply a combination of translation and scaling, the latter not necessarily uniform. An analogy of this transformation process based on traditional photography notions is to equate the world-clipping window with the camera settings and the variously sized prints that can be obtained from the resulting film image as possible viewports. Because the physical-device-based coordinates may not be portable from one device to another, a software abstraction layer known as normalized device coordinates is typically introduced for expressing viewports; it appears for example in the Graphical Kernel System (GKS) and later systems inspired from it. In 3D computer graphics, the viewport refers to the 2D rectangle used to project the 3D scene to the position of a virtual camera. A viewport is a region of the screen used to display a portion of the total image to be shown. In virtual desktops, the viewport is the visible portion of a 2D area which is larger than the visualization device. When viewing a document in a web browser, the viewport is the region of the browser window which contains the visible portion of the document. If the size of the viewport changes, for example as a result of the user resizing the browser window, then the browser may reflow the document (recalculate the locations and sizes of elements of the document). If the document is larger than the viewport, the user can control the portion of the document which is visible by scrolling in the viewport.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic mapping (statistics)

  Semantic mapping (SM) is a statistical method for dimensionality reduction (the transformation of data from a high-dimensional space into a low-dimensional space). SM can be used in a set of multidimensional vectors of features to extract a few new features that preserves the main data characteristics. SM performs dimensionality reduction by clustering the original features in semantic clusters and combining features mapped in the same cluster to generate an extracted feature. Given a data set, this method constructs a projection matrix that can be used to map a data element from a high-dimensional space into a reduced dimensional space. SM can be applied in construction of text mining and information retrieval systems, as well as systems managing vectors of high dimensionality. SM is an alternative to random mapping, principal components analysis and latent semantic indexing methods.

  Read more →
• 

  Boosting (machine learning)

  In machine learning (ML), boosting is an ensemble learning method that combines a set of less accurate models (called "weak learners") to create a single, highly accurate model (a "strong learner"). Unlike other ensemble methods that build models in parallel (such as bagging), boosting algorithms build models sequentially. Each new model in the sequence is trained to correct the errors made by its predecessors. This iterative process allows the overall model to improve its accuracy, particularly by reducing bias. Boosting is a popular and effective technique used in supervised learning for both classification and regression tasks. The theoretical foundation for boosting came from a question posed by Kearns and Valiant (1988, 1989): "Can a set of weak learners create a single strong learner?" A weak learner is defined as a classifier that performs only slightly better than random guessing, whereas a strong learner is a classifier that is highly correlated with the true classification. Robert Schapire's affirmative answer to this question in a 1990 paper led to the development of practical boosting algorithms. The first such algorithm was developed by Schapire, with Freund and Schapire later developing AdaBoost, which remains a foundational example of boosting. == Algorithms == While boosting is not algorithmically constrained, most boosting algorithms consist of iteratively learning weak classifiers with respect to a distribution and adding them to a final strong classifier. When they are added, they are weighted in a way that is related to the weak learners' accuracy. After a weak learner is added, the data weights are readjusted, known as "re-weighting". Misclassified input data gain a higher weight and examples that are classified correctly lose weight. Thus, future weak learners focus more on the examples that previous weak learners misclassified. There are many boosting algorithms. The original ones, proposed by Robert Schapire (a recursive majority gate formulation), and Yoav Freund (boost by majority), were not adaptive and could not take full advantage of the weak learners. Schapire and Freund then developed AdaBoost, an adaptive boosting algorithm that won the prestigious Gödel Prize. Only algorithms that are provable boosting algorithms in the probably approximately correct learning formulation can accurately be called boosting algorithms. Other algorithms that are similar in spirit to boosting algorithms are sometimes called "leveraging algorithms", although they are also sometimes incorrectly called boosting algorithms. The main variation between many boosting algorithms is their method of weighting training data points and hypotheses. AdaBoost is very popular and the most significant historically as it was the first algorithm that could adapt to the weak learners. It is often the basis of introductory coverage of boosting in university machine learning courses. There are many more recent algorithms such as LPBoost, TotalBoost, BrownBoost, xgboost, MadaBoost, LogitBoost, CatBoost and others. Many boosting algorithms fit into the AnyBoost framework, which shows that boosting performs gradient descent in a function space using a convex cost function. == Object categorization in computer vision == Given images containing various known objects in the world, a classifier can be learned from them to automatically classify the objects in future images. Simple classifiers built based on some image feature of the object tend to be weak in categorization performance. Using boosting methods for object categorization is a way to unify the weak classifiers in a special way to boost the overall ability of categorization. === Problem of object categorization === Object categorization is a typical task of computer vision that involves determining whether or not an image contains some specific category of object. The idea is closely related with recognition, identification, and detection. Appearance based object categorization typically contains feature extraction, learning a classifier, and applying the classifier to new examples. There are many ways to represent a category of objects, e.g. from shape analysis, bag of words models, or local descriptors such as SIFT, etc. Examples of supervised classifiers are Naive Bayes classifiers, support vector machines, mixtures of Gaussians, and neural networks. However, research has shown that object categories and their locations in images can be discovered in an unsupervised manner as well. === Status quo for object categorization === The recognition of object categories in images is a challenging problem in computer vision, especially when the number of categories is large. This is due to high intra class variability and the need for generalization across variations of objects within the same category. Objects within one category may look quite different. Even the same object may appear unalike under different viewpoint, scale, and illumination. Background clutter and partial occlusion add difficulties to recognition as well. Humans are able to recognize thousands of object types, whereas most of the existing object recognition systems are trained to recognize only a few, e.g. human faces, cars, simple objects, etc. Research has been very active on dealing with more categories and enabling incremental additions of new categories, and although the general problem remains unsolved, several multi-category objects detectors (for up to hundreds or thousands of categories) have been developed. One means is by feature sharing and boosting. === Boosting for binary categorization === AdaBoost can be used for face detection as an example of binary categorization. The two categories are faces versus background. The general algorithm is as follows: Form a large set of simple features Initialize weights for training images For T rounds Normalize the weights For available features from the set, train a classifier using a single feature and evaluate the training error Choose the classifier with the lowest error Update the weights of the training images: increase if classified wrongly by this classifier, decrease if correctly Form the final strong classifier as the linear combination of the T classifiers (coefficient larger if training error is small) After boosting, a classifier constructed from 200 features could yield a 95% detection rate under a 10 − 5 {\displaystyle 10^{-5}} false positive rate. Another application of boosting for binary categorization is a system that detects pedestrians using patterns of motion and appearance. This work is the first to combine both motion information and appearance information as features to detect a walking person. It takes a similar approach to the Viola-Jones object detection framework. === Boosting for multi-class categorization === Compared with binary categorization, multi-class categorization looks for common features that can be shared across the categories at the same time. They turn to be more generic edge like features. During learning, the detectors for each category can be trained jointly. Compared with training separately, it generalizes better, needs less training data, and requires fewer features to achieve the same performance. The main flow of the algorithm is similar to the binary case. What is different is that a measure of the joint training error shall be defined in advance. During each iteration the algorithm chooses a classifier of a single feature (features that can be shared by more categories shall be encouraged). This can be done via converting multi-class classification into a binary one (a set of categories versus the rest), or by introducing a penalty error from the categories that do not have the feature of the classifier. In the paper "Sharing visual features for multiclass and multiview object detection", A. Torralba et al. used GentleBoost for boosting and showed that when training data is limited, learning via sharing features does a much better job than no sharing, given same boosting rounds. Also, for a given performance level, the total number of features required (and therefore the run time cost of the classifier) for the feature sharing detectors, is observed to scale approximately logarithmically with the number of class, i.e., slower than linear growth in the non-sharing case. Similar results are shown in the paper "Incremental learning of object detectors using a visual shape alphabet", yet the authors used AdaBoost for boosting. == Convex vs. non-convex boosting algorithms == Boosting algorithms can be based on convex or non-convex optimization algorithms. Convex algorithms, such as AdaBoost and LogitBoost, can be "defeated" by random noise such that they can't learn basic and learnable combinations of weak hypotheses. This limitation was pointed out by Long & Servedio in 2008. However, by 2009, multiple authors demonstrated that boosting algorithms based on non-convex optimization, such as BrownBoost, can learn from nois

  Read more →
• 

  Neocognitron

  The neocognitron is a hierarchical, multilayered artificial neural network proposed by Kunihiko Fukushima in 1979. It has been used for Japanese handwritten character recognition and other pattern recognition tasks, and served as the inspiration for convolutional neural networks. Previously in 1969, he published a similar architecture, but with hand-designed kernels inspired by convolutions in mammalian vision. In 1975 he improved it to the Cognitron, and in 1979 he improved it to the neocognitron, which learns all convolutional kernels by unsupervised learning (in his terminology, "self-organized by 'learning without a teacher'"). The neocognitron was inspired by the model proposed by Hubel & Wiesel in 1959. They found two types of cells in the visual primary cortex called simple cell and complex cell, and also proposed a cascading model of these two types of cells for use in pattern recognition tasks. The neocognitron is a natural extension of these cascading models. The neocognitron consists of multiple types of cells, the most important of which are called S-cells and C-cells. The local features are extracted by S-cells, and these features' deformation, such as local shifts, are tolerated by C-cells. Local features in the input are integrated gradually and classified in the higher layers. The idea of local feature integration is found in several other models, such as the Convolutional Neural Network model, the SIFT method, and the HoG method. There are various kinds of neocognitron. For example, some types of neocognitron can detect multiple patterns in the same input by using backward signals to achieve selective attention.

  Read more →
• 

  Invoicera

  Invoicera is an online invoicing software. The software was created by a company with the same name that was founded in 2006, had 125 employees, and is based in India. It allows users to monitor, dispatch, and accept invoices in one web service. After signing up for the service, users are assigned a personal subdomain to set up their invoice configuration. It allows users to add clients' data to the service through uploading a Microsoft Excel file. Invoicera is compatible with businesses of varying sizes, including freelancers, small businesses, and large businesses. It is compatible with Basecamp, a project-management tool, so Invoicera can upload data from Basecamp. The software interfaces with more than 25 payment gateways. It supports subscriptions and repeated invoices and allows clients to schedule late fees when payments have not been made on time. Invoicera uses freemium model, letting users dispatch an unrestricted number of invoices to at most three customers. Chelsea Krause wrote in a 2019 review for Merchant Maverick, "Unfortunately, the software isn't as developed as it could be. Time tracking and reporting are limited and there are no live bank feeds — which is surprising for a company so focused on automation (especially since even many of the worst invoicing options out there still offer live bank feeds)." She further criticized Invoicera for having bad customer service and the software for not having recent changes. Brian Turner wrote in TechRadar that Invoicera had fewer templates compared to the other services he reviewed but "the ones offered are fully customizable". Rob Clymo wrote in TechRadar that "Invoicera lets you automate your invoicing and billing needs without too much in the way of hassle" and that although it "isn't a complete accounts solution ... it's a powerful supplement".

  Read more →
• 

  Winner-take-all (computing)

  Winner-take-all is a computational principle applied in computational models of neural networks by which neurons compete with each other for activation. In the classical form, only the neuron with the highest activation stays active while all other neurons shut down; however, other variations allow more than one neuron to be active, for example the soft winner take-all, by which a power function is applied to the neurons. == Neural networks == In the theory of artificial neural networks, winner-take-all networks are a case of competitive learning in recurrent neural networks. Output nodes in the network mutually inhibit each other, while simultaneously activating themselves through reflexive connections. After some time, only one node in the output layer will be active, namely the one corresponding to the strongest input. Thus the network uses nonlinear inhibition to pick out the largest of a set of inputs. Winner-take-all is a general computational primitive that can be implemented using different types of neural network models, including both continuous-time and spiking networks. Winner-take-all networks are commonly used in computational models of the brain, particularly for distributed decision-making or action selection in the cortex. Important examples include hierarchical models of vision, and models of selective attention and recognition. They are also common in artificial neural networks and neuromorphic analog VLSI circuits. It has been formally proven that the winner-take-all operation is computationally powerful compared to other nonlinear operations, such as thresholding. In many practical cases, there is not only one single neuron which becomes active but there are exactly k neurons which become active for a fixed number k. This principle is referred to as k-winners-take-all. === Example algorithm === Consider a single linear neuron, with inputs x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}} . Each input has weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , and the output of the neuron is ∑ i w i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i}w_{i}x_{i}} . In the Instar learning rule, on each input vector, the weight vectors are modified according to Δ w i = η ( x i − w i ) {\displaystyle \Delta w_{i}=\eta (x_{i}-w_{i})} where η {\displaystyle \eta } is the learning rate. This rule is unsupervised, since we need just the input vector, not a reference output. Now, consider multiple linear neurons y 1 , … , y m {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{m}} . The output of each satisfies y i = ∑ j w i j x j {\displaystyle y_{i}=\sum _{j}w_{ij}x_{j}} . In the winner-take-all algorithm, the weights are modified as follows. Given an input vector x {\displaystyle x} , each output is computed. The neuron with the largest output is selected, and the weights going into that neuron are modified according to the Instar learning rule. All other weights remain unchanged. The k-winners-take-all rule is similar, except that the Instar learning rule is applied to the weights going into the k neurons with the largest outputs. == Circuit example == A simple, but popular CMOS winner-take-all circuit is shown on the right. This circuit was originally proposed by Lazzaro et al. (1989) using MOS transistors biased to operate in the weak-inversion or subthreshold regime. In the particular case shown there are only two inputs (IIN,1 and IIN,2), but the circuit can be easily extended to multiple inputs in a straightforward way. It operates on continuous-time input signals (currents) in parallel, using only two transistors per input. In addition, the bias current IBIAS is set by a single global transistor that is common to all the inputs. The largest of the input currents sets the common potential VC. As a result, the corresponding output carries almost all the bias current, while the other outputs have currents that are close to zero. Thus, the circuit selects the larger of the two input currents, i.e., if IIN,1 > IIN,2, we get IOUT,1 = IBIAS and IOUT,2 = 0. Similarly, if IIN,2 > IIN,1, we get IOUT,1 = 0 and IOUT,2 = IBIAS. A SPICE-based DC simulation of the CMOS winner-take-all circuit in the two-input case is shown on the right. As shown in the top subplot, the input IIN,1 was fixed at 6nA, while IIN,2 was linearly increased from 0 to 10nA. The bottom subplot shows the two output currents. As expected, the output corresponding to the larger of the two inputs carries the entire bias current (10nA in this case), forcing the other output current nearly to zero. == Other uses == In stereo matching algorithms, following the taxonomy proposed by Scharstein and Szelliski, winner-take-all is a local method for disparity computation. Adopting a winner-take-all strategy, the disparity associated with the minimum or maximum cost value is selected at each pixel. It is axiomatic that in the electronic commerce market, early dominant players such as AOL or Yahoo! get most of the rewards. By 1998, one study found the top 5% of all web sites garnered more than 74% of all traffic. The winner-take-all hypothesis in economics suggests that once a technology or a firm gets ahead, it will do better and better over time, whereas lagging technology and firms will fall further behind. See First-mover advantage.

  Read more →
• 

  Universal approximation theorem

  In the field of machine learning, the universal approximation theorems (UATs) state that neural networks with a certain structure can, in principle, approximate any continuous function to any desired degree of accuracy. These theorems provide a mathematical justification for using neural networks, assuring researchers that a sufficiently large or deep network can model the complex, non-linear relationships often found in real-world data. The best-known version of the theorem applies to feedforward networks with a single hidden layer. It states that if the layer's activation function is non-polynomial (which is true for common choices like the sigmoid function or ReLU), then the network can act as a "universal approximator." Universality is achieved by increasing the number of neurons in the hidden layer, making the network "wider." Other versions of the theorem show that universality can also be achieved by keeping the network's width fixed but increasing its number of layers, making it "deeper." These are existence theorems. They guarantee that a network with the right structure exists, but they do not provide a method for finding the network's parameters (training it), nor do they specify exactly how large the network must be for a given function. Finding a suitable network remains a practical challenge that is typically addressed with optimization algorithms like backpropagation. == Setup == Artificial neural networks are combinations of multiple simple mathematical functions that implement more complicated functions from (typically) real-valued vectors to real-valued vectors. The spaces of multivariate functions that can be implemented by a network are determined by the structure of the network, the set of simple functions, and its multiplicative parameters. A great deal of theoretical work has gone into characterizing these function spaces. Most universal approximation theorems are in one of two classes. The first quantifies the approximation capabilities of neural networks with an arbitrary number of artificial neurons ("arbitrary width" case) and the second focuses on the case with an arbitrary number of hidden layers, each containing a limited number of artificial neurons ("arbitrary depth" case). In addition to these two classes, there are also universal approximation theorems for neural networks with bounded number of hidden layers and a limited number of neurons in each layer ("bounded depth and bounded width" case). == History == === Arbitrary width === The first results concerned the arbitrary width case. Ken-ichi Funahashi (May 1989) showed that Rumelhart–Hinton–Williams type backpropagation networks possess universal approximation capability with a class of sigmoidal activation functions, extending the result to multi-output mappings as well. Kurt Hornik, Maxwell Stinchcombe, and Halbert White (July 1989) showed that multilayer feed-forward networks with as few as one hidden layer are universal approximators, provided that the activation function satisfies certain conditions. George Cybenko (December 1989) independently established a related result for sigmoid activation functions using functional-analytic methods. Hornik also showed in 1991 that it is not the specific choice of the activation function but rather the multilayer feed-forward architecture itself that gives neural networks the potential of being universal approximators. Moshe Leshno et al in 1993 and later Allan Pinkus in 1999 showed that the universal approximation property is equivalent to having a nonpolynomial activation function. === Arbitrary depth === The arbitrary depth case was also studied by a number of authors such as Gustaf Gripenberg in 2003, Dmitry Yarotsky, Zhou Lu et al in 2017, Boris Hanin and Mark Sellke in 2018 who focused on neural networks with ReLU activation function. In 2020, Patrick Kidger and Terry Lyons extended those results to neural networks with general activation functions such, e.g. tanh or GeLU. One special case of arbitrary depth is that each composition component comes from a finite set of mappings. In 2024, Cai constructed a finite set of mappings, named a vocabulary, such that any continuous function can be approximated by compositing a sequence from the vocabulary. This is similar to the concept of compositionality in linguistics, which is the idea that a finite vocabulary of basic elements can be combined via grammar to express an infinite range of meanings. === Bounded depth and bounded width === The bounded depth and bounded width case was first studied by Maiorov and Pinkus in 1999. They showed that there exists an analytic sigmoidal activation function such that two hidden layer neural networks with bounded number of units in hidden layers are universal approximators. In 2018, Guliyev and Ismailov constructed a smooth sigmoidal activation function providing universal approximation property for two hidden layer feedforward neural networks with fewer units in hidden layers. In 2018, they also constructed single hidden layer networks with bounded width that are still universal approximators for univariate functions. However, this does not apply for multivariable functions. In 2022, Shen et al. obtained precise quantitative information on the depth and width required to approximate a target function by deep and wide ReLU neural networks. === Quantitative bounds === The question of minimal possible width for universality was first studied in 2021, Park et al obtained the minimum width required for the universal approximation of Lp functions using feed-forward neural networks with ReLU as activation functions. Similar results that can be directly applied to residual neural networks were also obtained in the same year by Paulo Tabuada and Bahman Gharesifard using control-theoretic arguments. In 2023, Cai obtained the optimal minimum width bound for the universal approximation. For the arbitrary depth case, Leonie Papon and Anastasis Kratsios derived explicit depth estimates depending on the regularity of the target function and of the activation function. === Kolmogorov network === The Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem is similar in spirit. Indeed, certain neural network families can directly apply the Kolmogorov–Arnold theorem to yield a universal approximation theorem. Robert Hecht-Nielsen showed that a three-layer neural network can approximate any continuous multivariate function. This was extended to the discontinuous case by Vugar Ismailov. In 2024, Ziming Liu and co-authors showed a practical application. === Reservoir computing and quantum reservoir computing === In reservoir computing a sparse recurrent neural network with fixed weights equipped of fading memory and echo state property is followed by a trainable output layer. Its universality has been demonstrated separately for what concerns networks of rate neurons and spiking neurons, respectively. In 2024, the framework has been generalized and extended to quantum reservoirs where the reservoir is based on qubits defined over Hilbert spaces. === Variants === Variants include discontinuous activation functions, noncompact domains, certifiable networks, random neural networks, and alternative network architectures and topologies. The universal approximation property of width-bounded networks has been studied as a dual of classical universal approximation results on depth-bounded networks. For input dimension d x {\displaystyle d_{x}} and output dimension d y {\displaystyle d_{y}} the minimum width required for the universal approximation of the Lp functions is exactly m a x { d x + 1 , d y } {\displaystyle max\{d_{x}+1,d_{y}\}} (for a ReLU network). More generally this also holds if both ReLU and a threshold activation function are used. Universal function approximation on graphs (or rather on graph isomorphism classes) by popular graph convolutional neural networks (GCNs or GNNs) can be made as discriminative as the Weisfeiler–Leman graph isomorphism test. In 2020, a universal approximation theorem result was established by Brüel-Gabrielsson, showing that graph representation with certain injective properties is sufficient for universal function approximation on bounded graphs and restricted universal function approximation on unbounded graphs, with an accompanying O ( | V | ⋅ | E | ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\left|V\right|\cdot \left|E\right|)} -runtime method that performed at state of the art on a collection of benchmarks (where V {\displaystyle V} and E {\displaystyle E} are the sets of nodes and edges of the graph respectively). There are also a variety of results between non-Euclidean spaces and other commonly used architectures and, more generally, algorithmically generated sets of functions, such as the convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture, radial basis functions, or neural networks with specific properties. == Arbitrary-width case == A universal approximation theorem formally states that a family of neural network funct

  Read more →
• 

  Sparse PCA

  Sparse principal component analysis (SPCA or sparse PCA) is a technique used in statistical analysis and, in particular, in the analysis of multivariate data sets. It extends the classic method of principal component analysis (PCA) for the reduction of dimensionality of data by introducing sparsity structures to the input variables. A particular disadvantage of ordinary PCA is that the principal components are usually linear combinations of all input variables. SPCA overcomes this disadvantage by finding components that are linear combinations of just a few input variables (SPCs). This means that some of the coefficients of the linear combinations defining the SPCs, called loadings, are equal to zero. The number of nonzero loadings is called the cardinality of the SPC. == Mathematical formulation == Consider a data matrix, X {\displaystyle X} , where each of the p {\displaystyle p} columns represent an input variable, and each of the n {\displaystyle n} rows represents an independent sample from data population. One assumes each column of X {\displaystyle X} has mean zero, otherwise one can subtract column-wise mean from each element of X {\displaystyle X} . Let Σ = 1 n − 1 X ⊤ X {\displaystyle \Sigma ={\frac {1}{n-1}}X^{\top }X} be the empirical covariance matrix of X {\displaystyle X} , which has dimension p × p {\displaystyle p\times p} . Given an integer k {\displaystyle k} with 1 ≤ k ≤ p {\displaystyle 1\leq k\leq p} , the sparse PCA problem can be formulated as maximizing the variance along a direction represented by vector v ∈ R p {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} while constraining its cardinality: max v T Σ v subject to ‖ v ‖ 2 = 1 ‖ v ‖ 0 ≤ k . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &v^{T}\Sigma v\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{2}=1\\&\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{0}\leq k.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 1 The first constraint specifies that v is a unit vector. In the second constraint, ‖ v ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \left\Vert v\right\Vert _{0}} represents the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} pseudo-norm of v, which is defined as the number of its non-zero components. So the second constraint specifies that the number of non-zero components in v is less than or equal to k, which is typically an integer that is much smaller than dimension p. The optimal value of Eq. 1 is known as the k-sparse largest eigenvalue. If one takes k=p, the problem reduces to the ordinary PCA, and the optimal value becomes the largest eigenvalue of covariance matrix Σ. After finding the optimal solution v, one deflates Σ to obtain a new matrix Σ 1 = Σ − ( v T Σ v ) v v T , {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}=\Sigma -(v^{T}\Sigma v)vv^{T},} and iterate this process to obtain further principal components. However, unlike PCA, sparse PCA cannot guarantee that different principal components are orthogonal. In order to achieve orthogonality, additional constraints must be enforced. The following equivalent definition is in matrix form. Let V {\displaystyle V} be a p×p symmetric matrix, one can rewrite the sparse PCA problem as max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 ‖ V ‖ 0 ≤ k 2 R a n k ( V ) = 1 , V ⪰ 0. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\Vert V\Vert _{0}\leq k^{2}\\&Rank(V)=1,V\succeq 0.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 2 Tr is the matrix trace, and ‖ V ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \Vert V\Vert _{0}} represents the non-zero elements in matrix V. The last line specifies that V has matrix rank one and is positive semidefinite. The last line means that one has V = v v T {\displaystyle V=vv^{T}} , so Eq. 2 is equivalent to Eq. 1. Moreover, the rank constraint in this formulation is actually redundant, and therefore sparse PCA can be cast as the following mixed-integer semidefinite program max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 | V i , i | ≤ z i , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , p } , | V i , j | ≤ 1 2 z i , ∀ i , j ∈ { 1 , . . . , p } : i ≠ j , V ⪰ 0 , z ∈ { 0 , 1 } p , ∑ i z i ≤ k {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\vert V_{i,i}\vert \leq z_{i},\forall i\in \{1,...,p\},\vert V_{i,j}\vert \leq {\frac {1}{2}}z_{i},\forall i,j\in \{1,...,p\}:i\neq j,\\&V\succeq 0,z\in \{0,1\}^{p},\sum _{i}z_{i}\leq k\end{aligned}}} Eq. 3 Because of the cardinality constraint, the maximization problem is hard to solve exactly, especially when dimension p is high. In fact, the sparse PCA problem in Eq. 1 is NP-hard in the strong sense. == Computational considerations == As most sparse problems, variable selection in SPCA is a computationally intractable non-convex NP-hard problem, therefore greedy sub-optimal algorithms are often employed to find solutions. Note also that SPCA introduces hyperparameters quantifying in what capacity large parameter values are penalized. These might need tuning to achieve satisfactory performance, thereby adding to the total computational cost. == Algorithms for SPCA == Several alternative approaches (of Eq. 1) have been proposed, including a regression framework, a penalized matrix decomposition framework, a convex relaxation/semidefinite programming framework, a generalized power method framework an alternating maximization framework forward-backward greedy search and exact methods using branch-and-bound techniques, a certifiably optimal branch-and-bound approach Bayesian formulation framework. A certifiably optimal mixed-integer semidefinite branch-and-cut approach The methodological and theoretical developments of Sparse PCA as well as its applications in scientific studies are recently reviewed in a survey paper. === Notes on Semidefinite Programming Relaxation === It has been proposed that sparse PCA can be approximated by semidefinite programming (SDP). If one drops the rank constraint and relaxes the cardinality constraint by a 1-norm convex constraint, one gets a semidefinite programming relaxation, which can be solved efficiently in polynomial time: max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 1 T | V | 1 ≤ k V ⪰ 0. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\mathbf {1} ^{T}|V|\mathbf {1} \leq k\\&V\succeq 0.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 3 In the second constraint, 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } is a p×1 vector of ones, and |V| is the matrix whose elements are the absolute values of the elements of V. The optimal solution V {\displaystyle V} to the relaxed problem Eq. 3 is not guaranteed to have rank one. In that case, V {\displaystyle V} can be truncated to retain only the dominant eigenvector. While the semidefinite program does not scale beyond n=300 covariates, it has been shown that a second-order cone relaxation of the semidefinite relaxation is almost as tight and successfully solves problems with n=1000s of covariates == Applications == === Financial Data Analysis === Suppose ordinary PCA is applied to a dataset where each input variable represents a different asset, it may generate principal components that are weighted combination of all the assets. In contrast, sparse PCA would produce principal components that are weighted combination of only a few input assets, so one can easily interpret its meaning. Furthermore, if one uses a trading strategy based on these principal components, fewer assets imply less transaction costs. === Biology === Consider a dataset where each input variable corresponds to a specific gene. Sparse PCA can produce a principal component that involves only a few genes, so researchers can focus on these specific genes for further analysis. === High-dimensional Hypothesis Testing === Contemporary datasets often have the number of input variables ( p {\displaystyle p} ) comparable with or even much larger than the number of samples ( n {\displaystyle n} ). It has been shown that if p / n {\displaystyle p/n} does not converge to zero, the classical PCA is not consistent. In other words, if we let k = p {\displaystyle k=p} in Eq. 1, then the optimal value does not converge to the largest eigenvalue of data population when the sample size n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\rightarrow \infty } , and the optimal solution does not converge to the direction of maximum variance. But sparse PCA can retain consistency even if p ≫ n . {\displaystyle p\gg n.} The k-sparse largest eigenvalue (the optimal value of Eq. 1) can be used to discriminate an isometric model, where every direction has the same variance, from a spiked covariance model in high-dimensional setting. Consider a hypothesis test where the null hypothesis specifies that data X {\displaystyle X} are generated from a multivariate normal distribution with mean 0 and covariance equal to an identity matrix, and the alternative hypothesis specifies that data X {\displaystyle X} is generated from a spiked model with signal strength θ {\displaystyle \theta } : H 0 : X ∼ N ( 0 , I p ) , H 1 : X ∼ N ( 0 , I p + θ v v T ) , {\displaystyle H_{0}:X\sim N(0,I_{p}),\quad H_{1}:X\sim N(0,I_{p}+\theta vv^{T}),} where v ∈ R p {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}

  Read more →
• 

  AI-complete

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.

  Read more →
• 

  Q-learning

  Q-learning is a reinforcement learning algorithm that trains an agent to assign values to its possible actions based on its current state, without requiring a model of the environment (model-free). It can handle problems with stochastic transitions and rewards without requiring adaptations. For example, in a grid maze, an agent learns to reach an exit worth 10 points. At a junction, Q-learning might assign a higher value to moving right than left if right gets to the exit faster, improving this choice by trying both directions over time. For any finite Markov decision process, Q-learning finds an optimal policy in the sense of maximizing the expected value of the total reward over any and all successive steps, starting from the current state. Q-learning can identify an optimal action-selection policy for any given finite Markov decision process, given infinite exploration time and a partly random policy. "Q" refers to the function that the algorithm computes: the expected reward—that is, the quality—of an action taken in a given state. == Reinforcement learning == Reinforcement learning involves an agent, a set of states S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , and a set A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} of actions per state. By performing an action a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in {\mathcal {A}}} , the agent transitions from state to state. Executing an action in a specific state provides the agent with a reward (a numerical score). The goal of the agent is to maximize its total reward. It does this by adding the maximum reward attainable from future states to the reward for achieving its current state, effectively influencing the current action by the potential future reward. This potential reward is a weighted sum of expected values of the rewards of all future steps starting from the current state. As an example, consider the process of boarding a train, in which the reward is measured by the negative of the total time spent boarding (alternatively, the cost of boarding the train is equal to the boarding time). One strategy is to enter the train door as soon as they open, minimizing the initial wait time for yourself. If the train is crowded, however, then you will have a slow entry after the initial action of entering the door as people are fighting you to depart the train as you attempt to board. The total boarding time, or cost, is then: 0 seconds wait time + 15 seconds fight time On the next day, by random chance (exploration), you decide to wait and let other people depart first. This initially results in a longer wait time. However, less time is spent fighting the departing passengers. Overall, this path has a higher reward than that of the previous day, since the total boarding time is now: 5 second wait time + 0 second fight time Through exploration, despite the initial (patient) action resulting in a larger cost (or negative reward) than in the forceful strategy, the overall cost is lower, thus revealing a more rewarding strategy. == Algorithm == After Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} steps into the future the agent will decide some next step. The weight for this step is calculated as γ Δ t {\displaystyle \gamma ^{\Delta t}} , where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } (the discount factor) is a number between 0 and 1 ( 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \gamma \leq 1} ). Assuming γ < 1 {\displaystyle \gamma <1} , it has the effect of valuing rewards received earlier higher than those received later (reflecting the value of a "good start"). γ {\displaystyle \gamma } may also be interpreted as the probability to succeed (or survive) at every step Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} . The algorithm, therefore, has a function that calculates the quality of a state–action combination: Q : S × A → R {\displaystyle Q:{\mathcal {S}}\times {\mathcal {A}}\to \mathbb {R} } . Before learning begins, ⁠ Q {\displaystyle Q} ⁠ is initialized to a possibly arbitrary fixed value (chosen by the programmer). Then, at each time t {\displaystyle t} the agent selects an action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} , observes a reward R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} , enters a new state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} (that may depend on both the previous state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} and the selected action), and Q {\displaystyle Q} is updated. The core of the algorithm is a Bellman equation as a simple value iteration update, using the weighted average of the current value and the new information: Q n e w ( S t , A t ) ← ( 1 − α ⏟ learning rate ) ⋅ Q ( S t , A t ) ⏟ current value + α ⏟ learning rate ⋅ ( R t + 1 ⏟ reward + γ ⏟ discount factor ⋅ max a Q ( S t + 1 , a ) ⏟ estimate of optimal future value ⏟ new value (temporal difference target) ) {\displaystyle Q^{new}(S_{t},A_{t})\leftarrow (1-\underbrace {\alpha } _{\text{learning rate}})\cdot \underbrace {Q(S_{t},A_{t})} _{\text{current value}}+\underbrace {\alpha } _{\text{learning rate}}\cdot {\bigg (}\underbrace {\underbrace {R_{t+1}} _{\text{reward}}+\underbrace {\gamma } _{\text{discount factor}}\cdot \underbrace {\max _{a}Q(S_{t+1},a)} _{\text{estimate of optimal future value}}} _{\text{new value (temporal difference target)}}{\bigg )}} where R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} is the reward received when moving from the state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} to the state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} , and α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the learning rate ( 0 < α ≤ 1 ) {\displaystyle (0<\alpha \leq 1)} . Note that Q n e w ( S t , A t ) {\displaystyle Q^{new}(S_{t},A_{t})} is the sum of three terms: ( 1 − α ) Q ( S t , A t ) {\displaystyle (1-\alpha )Q(S_{t},A_{t})} : the current value (weighted by one minus the learning rate) α R t + 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \,R_{t+1}} : the reward R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} to obtain if action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} is taken when in state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} (weighted by learning rate) α γ max a Q ( S t + 1 , a ) {\displaystyle \alpha \gamma \max _{a}Q(S_{t+1},a)} : the maximum reward that can be obtained from state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} (weighted by learning rate and discount factor) An episode of the algorithm ends when state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} is a final or terminal state. However, Q-learning can also learn in non-episodic tasks (as a result of the property of convergent infinite series). If the discount factor is lower than 1, the action values are finite even if the problem can contain infinite loops or paths. For all final states s f {\displaystyle s_{f}} , Q ( s f , a ) {\displaystyle Q(s_{f},a)} is never updated, but is set to the reward value r {\displaystyle r} observed for state s f {\displaystyle s_{f}} . In most cases, Q ( s f , a ) {\displaystyle Q(s_{f},a)} can be taken to equal zero. == Influence of variables == === Learning rate === The learning rate or step size determines to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information. A factor of 0 makes the agent learn nothing (exclusively exploiting prior knowledge), while a factor of 1 makes the agent consider only the most recent information (ignoring prior knowledge to explore possibilities). In fully deterministic environments, a learning rate of α t = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}=1} is optimal. When the problem is stochastic, the algorithm converges under some technical conditions on the learning rate that require it to decrease to zero. In practice, often a constant learning rate is used, such as α t = 0.1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}=0.1} for all t {\displaystyle t} . === Discount factor === The discount factor ⁠ γ {\displaystyle \gamma } ⁠ determines the importance of future rewards. A factor of 0 will make the agent "myopic" (or short-sighted) by only considering current rewards, i.e. r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} (in the update rule above), while a factor approaching 1 will make it strive for a long-term high reward. If the discount factor meets or exceeds 1, the action values may diverge. For ⁠ γ = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma =1} ⁠, without a terminal state, or if the agent never reaches one, all environment histories become infinitely long, and utilities with additive, undiscounted rewards generally become infinite. Even with a discount factor only slightly lower than 1, Q-function learning leads to propagation of errors and instabilities when the value function is approximated with an artificial neural network. In that case, starting with a lower discount factor and increasing it towards its final value accelerates learning. === Initial conditions (Q0) === Since Q-learning is an iterative algorithm, it implicitly assumes an initial condition before the first update occurs. High initial values, also known as "optimistic initial conditions", can encourage exploration: no matter what action is selected, the update rule will cause it to have lower values than the other alternative, thus increasing their choice probability. The first reward r {\displaystyle r} can be used to reset the initial conditions. According to this idea, the first time an action is taken the reward is used to set the value

  Read more →
• 

  Influence diagram

  An influence diagram (ID) (also called a relevance diagram, decision diagram or a decision network) is a compact graphical and mathematical representation of a decision situation. It is a generalization of a Bayesian network, in which not only probabilistic inference problems but also decision making problems (following the maximum expected utility criterion) can be modeled and solved. ID was first developed in the mid-1970s by decision analysts with an intuitive semantic that is easy to understand. It is now adopted widely and becoming an alternative to the decision tree which typically suffers from exponential growth in number of branches with each variable modeled. ID is directly applicable in team decision analysis, since it allows incomplete sharing of information among team members to be modeled and solved explicitly. Extensions of ID also find their use in game theory as an alternative representation of the game tree. == Semantics == An ID is a directed acyclic graph with three types (plus one subtype) of node and three types of arc (or arrow) between nodes. Nodes: Decision node (corresponding to each decision to be made) is drawn as a rectangle. Uncertainty node (corresponding to each uncertainty to be modeled) is drawn as an oval. Deterministic node (corresponding to special kind of uncertainty that its outcome is deterministically known whenever the outcome of some other uncertainties are also known) is drawn as a double oval. Value node (corresponding to each component of additively separable Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function) is drawn as an octagon (or diamond). Arcs: Functional arcs (ending in value node) indicate that one of the components of additively separable utility function is a function of all the nodes at their tails. Conditional arcs (ending in uncertainty node) indicate that the uncertainty at their heads is probabilistically conditioned on all the nodes at their tails. Conditional arcs (ending in deterministic node) indicate that the uncertainty at their heads is deterministically conditioned on all the nodes at their tails. Informational arcs (ending in decision node) indicate that the decision at their heads is made with the outcome of all the nodes at their tails known beforehand. Given a properly structured ID: Decision nodes and incoming information arcs collectively state the alternatives (what can be done when the outcome of certain decisions and/or uncertainties are known beforehand) Uncertainty/deterministic nodes and incoming conditional arcs collectively model the information (what are known and their probabilistic/deterministic relationships) Value nodes and incoming functional arcs collectively quantify the preference (how things are preferred over one another). Alternative, information, and preference are termed decision basis in decision analysis, they represent three required components of any valid decision situation. Formally, the semantic of influence diagram is based on sequential construction of nodes and arcs, which implies a specification of all conditional independencies in the diagram. The specification is defined by the d {\displaystyle d} -separation criterion of Bayesian network. According to this semantic, every node is probabilistically independent on its non-successor nodes given the outcome of its immediate predecessor nodes. Likewise, a missing arc between non-value node X {\displaystyle X} and non-value node Y {\displaystyle Y} implies that there exists a set of non-value nodes Z {\displaystyle Z} , e.g., the parents of Y {\displaystyle Y} , that renders Y {\displaystyle Y} independent of X {\displaystyle X} given the outcome of the nodes in Z {\displaystyle Z} . == Example == Consider the simple influence diagram representing a situation where a decision-maker is planning their vacation. There is 1 decision node (Vacation Activity), 2 uncertainty nodes (Weather Condition, Weather Forecast), and 1 value node (Satisfaction). There are 2 functional arcs (ending in Satisfaction), 1 conditional arc (ending in Weather Forecast), and 1 informational arc (ending in Vacation Activity). Functional arcs ending in Satisfaction indicate that Satisfaction is a utility function of Weather Condition and Vacation Activity. In other words, their satisfaction can be quantified if they know what the weather is like and what their choice of activity is. (Note that they do not value Weather Forecast directly) Conditional arc ending in Weather Forecast indicates their belief that Weather Forecast and Weather Condition can be dependent. Informational arc ending in Vacation Activity indicates that they will only know Weather Forecast, not Weather Condition, when making their choice. In other words, actual weather will be known after they make their choice, and only forecast is what they can count on at this stage. It also follows semantically, for example, that Vacation Activity is independent on (irrelevant to) Weather Condition given Weather Forecast is known. == Applicability to value of information == The above example highlights the power of the influence diagram in representing an extremely important concept in decision analysis known as the value of information. Consider the following three scenarios; Scenario 1: The decision-maker could make their Vacation Activity decision while knowing what Weather Condition will be like. This corresponds to adding extra informational arc from Weather Condition to Vacation Activity in the above influence diagram. Scenario 2: The original influence diagram as shown above. Scenario 3: The decision-maker makes their decision without even knowing the Weather Forecast. This corresponds to removing informational arc from Weather Forecast to Vacation Activity in the above influence diagram. Scenario 1 is the best possible scenario for this decision situation since there is no longer any uncertainty on what they care about (Weather Condition) when making their decision. Scenario 3, however, is the worst possible scenario for this decision situation since they need to make their decision without any hint (Weather Forecast) on what they care about (Weather Condition) will turn out to be. The decision-maker is usually better off (definitely no worse off, on average) to move from scenario 3 to scenario 2 through the acquisition of new information. The most they should be willing to pay for such move is called the value of information on Weather Forecast, which is essentially the value of imperfect information on Weather Condition. The applicability of this simple ID and the value of information concept is tremendous, especially in medical decision making when most decisions have to be made with imperfect information about their patients, diseases, etc. == Related concepts == Influence diagrams are hierarchical and can be defined either in terms of their structure or in greater detail in terms of the functional and numerical relation between diagram elements. An ID that is consistently defined at all levels—structure, function, and number—is a well-defined mathematical representation and is referred to as a well-formed influence diagram (WFID). WFIDs can be evaluated using reversal and removal operations to yield answers to a large class of probabilistic, inferential, and decision questions. More recent techniques have been developed by artificial intelligence researchers concerning Bayesian network inference (belief propagation). An influence diagram having only uncertainty nodes (i.e., a Bayesian network) is also called a relevance diagram. An arc connecting node A to B implies not only that "A is relevant to B", but also that "B is relevant to A" (i.e., relevance is a symmetric relationship).

  Read more →
• 

  State–action–reward–state–action

  State–action–reward–state–action (SARSA) is an algorithm for learning a Markov decision process policy, used in the reinforcement learning area of machine learning. It was proposed by Rummery and Niranjan in a technical note with the name "Modified Connectionist Q-Learning" (MCQ-L). The alternative name SARSA, proposed by Rich Sutton, was only mentioned as a footnote. This name reflects the fact that the main function for updating the Q-value depends on the current state of the agent "S1", the action the agent chooses "A1", the reward "R2" the agent gets for choosing this action, the state "S2" that the agent enters after taking that action, and finally the next action "A2" the agent chooses in its new state. The acronym for the quintuple (St, At, Rt+1, St+1, At+1) is SARSA. Some authors use a slightly different convention and write the quintuple (St, At, Rt, St+1, At+1), depending on which time step the reward is formally assigned. The rest of the article uses the former convention. == Algorithm == Q new ( S t , A t ) ← ( 1 − α ) Q ( S t , A t ) + α [ R t + 1 + γ Q ( S t + 1 , A t + 1 ) ] {\displaystyle Q^{\textrm {new}}(S_{t},A_{t})\leftarrow (1-\alpha )Q(S_{t},A_{t})+\alpha \,[R_{t+1}+\gamma \,Q(S_{t+1},A_{t+1})]} A SARSA agent interacts with the environment and updates the policy based on actions taken, hence this is known as an on-policy learning algorithm. The Q value for a state-action is updated by an error, adjusted by the learning rate α. Q values represent the possible reward received in the next time step for taking action a in state s, plus the discounted future reward received from the next state-action observation. Watkin's Q-learning updates an estimate of the optimal state-action value function Q ∗ {\displaystyle Q^{}} based on the maximum reward of available actions. While SARSA learns the Q values associated with taking the policy it follows itself, Watkin's Q-learning learns the Q values associated with taking the optimal policy while following an exploration/exploitation policy. Some optimizations of Watkin's Q-learning may be applied to SARSA. == Hyperparameters == === Learning rate (alpha) === The learning rate determines to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information. A factor of 0 will make the agent not learn anything, while a factor of 1 would make the agent consider only the most recent information. === Discount factor (gamma) === The discount factor determines the importance of future rewards. A discount factor of 0 makes the agent "opportunistic", or "myopic", e.g., by only considering current rewards, while a factor approaching 1 will make it strive for a long-term high reward. If the discount factor meets or exceeds 1, the Q {\displaystyle Q} values may diverge. === Initial conditions (Q(S0, A0)) === Since SARSA is an iterative algorithm, it implicitly assumes an initial condition before the first update occurs. A high (infinite) initial value, also known as "optimistic initial conditions", can encourage exploration: no matter what action takes place, the update rule causes it to have higher values than the other alternative, thus increasing their choice probability. In 2013 it was suggested that the first reward r {\displaystyle r} could be used to reset the initial conditions. According to this idea, the first time an action is taken the reward is used to set the value of Q {\displaystyle Q} . This allows immediate learning in case of fixed deterministic rewards. This resetting-of-initial-conditions (RIC) approach seems to be consistent with human behavior in repeated binary choice experiments.

  Read more →
• 

  Threat actor

  In cybersecurity and risk assessment, a threat actor (or threat agents, attackers, or adversaries) is a person, group, organisation, state, or other entity with the ability to cause, carry, transmit, support, or exploit a threat. Threat actors are commonly analysed according to their motivations, resources, technical capability, access to systems, relationship to a target, and degree of connection to state authority. They may exploit vulnerabilities, conduct social engineering, steal or monetise data, disrupt operations, or support other actors who carry out such activity. Because the term covers a wide range of actors, researchers and security organisations use taxonomies that distinguish between groups such as cybercriminals, state-linked actors, ideologically motivated actors, thrill seekers or trolls, insiders, and competitors. Threat actor classifications are used in risk management, cyber threat intelligence, and incident response to connect observed behaviour with possible objectives and likely future activity. The categories are not always mutually exclusive: the same actor may combine criminal, ideological, commercial, or state-linked motivations, and different organisations may use different names for similar actors. == Risk assessment and security management == In risk assessment, threat actor analysis is used to identify who or what may create, carry, transmit, support, or exploit a threat, and how that actor relates to the system being assessed. Rausand and Haugen classify threat actors by their relationship to the system, distinguishing between internal and external actors, and by intent, distinguishing between intentional and unintentional actors. Threat actor classification may also support incident investigation. Rogers argued that actor categories could be inferred from observable case points, such as tools used, messages left, data targeted, forensic knowledge, and the degree of damage, allowing investigators to assess likely motivation and skill level. Later work similarly linked actor classification to operational analysis. Chng, Lu, Kumar and Yau proposed a framework connecting hacker types, motivations and typical strategies, arguing that observed behaviour before or during an attack can help analysts infer the likely type of actor involved. At the strategic level, actor analysis may consider an actor's resources, capabilities, degree of state involvement, motivations and objectives. == Landscape == The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research has described the contemporary cyberthreat landscape as involving an increasingly diverse and interconnected set of actors, including state-led operations, cybercriminal syndicates, ideological hacktivists, commercial cyber mercenaries, private companies and civilian volunteers. Its 2026 report argued that these actors vary in resources, technical sophistication and relationships with states, making it traditional distinctions between state, civilian combatant roles, and legitimate and illegitimate conduct harder to apply. == Academic taxonomies == Early taxonomies classified hackers by activity, skill, motivation, or criminal profile. Landreth proposed six categories based on activity: novice, student, tourist, crasher, and thief. Hollinger classified computer misuse into pirates, browsers, and crackers, describing a progression from less-skilled activity to more technically serious offences. Chantler used attributes including activity, skill, knowledge, motivation, and duration of involvement to distinguish between an elite group, neophytes, and "losers and lamers". Parker proposed seven profiles of cybercriminals: pranksters, hacksters, malicious hackers, personal problem solvers, career criminals, extreme advocates, and malcontents, addicts, and irrational or incompetent people. In 2000, Marc Rogers proposed a taxonomy of hackers with seven, non-mutually-exclusive categories: newbie/tool kit users, cyber-punks, internals, coders, old guard hackers, professional criminals, and cyber-terrorists. Rausand and Haugen distinguish between internal and external threat actors, and between intentional and unintentional threat actors. Internal actors have some relationship with, access to, or position inside the system or organisation, while external actors operate from outside it. Intentional actors seek to create, exploit, or support a threat event, whereas unintentional actors may cause or enable a threat event through error, negligence, accident, or lack of awareness. Rogers later revised his hacker taxonomy into Novices, Cyber-punks, Internals, Petty Thieves, Virus Writers, Old Guard hackers, Professional Criminals, Information Warriors, and, more tentatively, Political Activists. In the model, motivation is grouped into four broad domains: curiosity, notoriety, revenge, and financial gain. A 2022 review by Chng, Lu, Kumar and Yau examined 11 hacker typologies published over three decades and proposed a unified framework linking hacker types, motivations, and strategies. The framework identified 13 hacker types and seven motivations, and argued that observed strategies during an attack can help analysts infer the likely type of actor involved. == Government taxonomies == Taxonomies of threat actors by governments are much more likely to include state-level threat actors. In the United States the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) uses the term threat source in its risk-assessment guidance: organisations are directed to identify and characterise threat sources of concern, including capability, intent and targeting for adversarial threat sources, and the range of effects for non-adversarial threat sources. NIST treats threat-source identification as part of the risk-assessment process, alongside identifying threat events, vulnerabilities, likelihood and impact. In the EU, European Union Agency for Cybersecurity publishes the annual ENISA Threat Landscape, which analyses cyber incidents and adversary behaviour affecting the European Union. The 2025 report analysed selected incidents from the previous year and grouped activity around cybercrime, state-aligned activity, foreign information manipulation and interference, and hacktivism. In ENISA's 2025 analysis, hacktivist activity dominated reporting, representing almost 80% of recorded incidents and consisting mainly of low-level distributed denial-of-service operations. ENISA also reported increasing convergence between hacktivism, cybercrime and state-nexus activity, including state-aligned use of hacktivist personas, hacktivist adoption of ransomware, and false-flag or impersonation activity. At the UN level, A 2026 report by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research described the cyberthreat landscape as involving state-led operations, cybercriminal syndicates, ideological hacktivists, commercial cyber mercenaries, and civilian volunteers, with actors varying in resources, technical sophistication, and links to states. Canada defines threat actors as states, groups, or individuals who aim to cause harm by exploiting a vulnerability with malicious intent. A threat actor must be trying to gain access to information systems to access or alter data, devices, systems, or networks. The Japanese government's National Centre of Incident Readiness and Strategy (NISC) was established in 2015 to create a "free, fair and secure cyberspace" in Japan. The NICS created a cybersecurity strategy in 2018 that outlines nation-states and cybercrime to be some of the most key threats. It also indicates that terrorist usage of the cyberspace needs to be monitored and understood. The Security Council of the Russian Federation published the cyber security strategy doctrine in 2016. This strategy highlights the following threat actors as a risk to cyber security measures: nation-state actors, cyber criminals, and terrorists. == Techniques == Threat actors use techniques like Social engineering (security), and Phishing, alongside technical exploits like Cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and denial-of-service attacks. == Limitations == In practice, actor categories may overlap (Edward Snowden for example), and the same activity may combine features associated with hacktivism, cybercrime and state-linked operations. The lines between hacktivism, cybercrime and state-nexus activity had continued to blur, with shared toolsets, overlapping methods, fake personas, hacktivist adoption of ransomware, and cybercriminal or state-linked actors masquerading as other groups. Threat actor analysis also has limits as a risk-management method. NIST notes that risk assessments depend on their purpose, scope, assumptions, constraints, information sources, risk model and analytic approach, and that assessments are tied to particular time frames and organisational contexts. NIST also warns that simple threat-vulnerability pairing may be undesirable or problematic where there are many threats and vulnerabilities, and recom

  Read more →
• 

  Locality-sensitive hashing

  In computer science, locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) is a fuzzy hashing technique that hashes similar input items into the same "buckets" with high probability. The number of buckets is much smaller than the universe of possible input items. Since similar items end up in the same buckets, this technique can be used for data clustering and nearest neighbor search. It differs from conventional hashing techniques in that hash collisions are maximized, not minimized. Alternatively, the technique can be seen as a way to reduce the dimensionality of high-dimensional data; high-dimensional input items can be reduced to low-dimensional versions while preserving relative distances between items. Hashing-based approximate nearest-neighbor search algorithms generally use one of two main categories of hashing methods: either data-independent methods, such as locality-sensitive hashing (LSH); or data-dependent methods, such as locality-preserving hashing (LPH). Locality-preserving hashing was initially devised as a way to facilitate data pipelining in implementations of massively parallel algorithms that use randomized routing and universal hashing to reduce memory contention and network congestion. == Definitions == A finite family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} of functions h : M → S {\displaystyle h\colon M\to S} is defined to be an LSH family for a metric space M = ( M , d ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}=(M,d)} , a threshold r > 0 {\displaystyle r>0} , an approximation factor c > 1 {\displaystyle c>1} , and probabilities p 1 > p 2 {\displaystyle p_{1}>p_{2}} if it satisfies the following condition. For any two points a , b ∈ M {\displaystyle a,b\in M} and a hash function h {\displaystyle h} chosen uniformly at random from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} : If d ( a , b ) ≤ r {\displaystyle d(a,b)\leq r} , then h ( a ) = h ( b ) {\displaystyle h(a)=h(b)} (i.e., a and b collide) with probability at least p 1 {\displaystyle p_{1}} , If d ( a , b ) ≥ c r {\displaystyle d(a,b)\geq cr} , then h ( a ) = h ( b ) {\displaystyle h(a)=h(b)} with probability at most p 2 {\displaystyle p_{2}} . Such a family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called ( r , c r , p 1 , p 2 ) {\displaystyle (r,cr,p_{1},p_{2})} -sensitive. === LSH with respect to a similarity measure === Alternatively it is possible to define an LSH family on a universe of items U endowed with a similarity function ϕ : U × U → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \phi \colon U\times U\to [0,1]} . In this setting, a LSH scheme is a family of hash functions H coupled with a probability distribution D over H such that a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} chosen according to D satisfies P r [ h ( a ) = h ( b ) ] = ϕ ( a , b ) {\displaystyle Pr[h(a)=h(b)]=\phi (a,b)} for each a , b ∈ U {\displaystyle a,b\in U} . === Amplification === Given a ( d 1 , d 2 , p 1 , p 2 ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},p_{1},p_{2})} -sensitive family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , we can construct new families G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} by either the AND-construction or OR-construction of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . To create an AND-construction, we define a new family G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} of hash functions g, where each function g is constructed from k random functions h 1 , … , h k {\displaystyle h_{1},\ldots ,h_{k}} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . We then say that for a hash function g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , g ( x ) = g ( y ) {\displaystyle g(x)=g(y)} if and only if all h i ( x ) = h i ( y ) {\displaystyle h_{i}(x)=h_{i}(y)} for i = 1 , 2 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,2,\ldots ,k} . Since the members of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} are independently chosen for any g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} is a ( d 1 , d 2 , p 1 k , p 2 k ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},p_{1}^{k},p_{2}^{k})} -sensitive family. To create an OR-construction, we define a new family G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} of hash functions g, where each function g is constructed from k random functions h 1 , … , h k {\displaystyle h_{1},\ldots ,h_{k}} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . We then say that for a hash function g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , g ( x ) = g ( y ) {\displaystyle g(x)=g(y)} if and only if h i ( x ) = h i ( y ) {\displaystyle h_{i}(x)=h_{i}(y)} for one or more values of i. Since the members of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} are independently chosen for any g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} is a ( d 1 , d 2 , 1 − ( 1 − p 1 ) k , 1 − ( 1 − p 2 ) k ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},1-(1-p_{1})^{k},1-(1-p_{2})^{k})} -sensitive family. == Applications == LSH has been applied to several problem domains, including: Near-duplicate detection Hierarchical clustering Genome-wide association study Image similarity identification VisualRank Gene expression similarity identification Audio similarity identification Nearest neighbor search Audio fingerprint Digital video fingerprinting Shared memory organization in parallel computing Physical data organization in database management systems Training fully connected neural networks Computer security Machine learning == Methods == === Bit sampling for Hamming distance === One of the easiest ways to construct an LSH family is by bit sampling. This approach works for the Hamming distance over d-dimensional vectors { 0 , 1 } d {\displaystyle \{0,1\}^{d}} . Here, the family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} of hash functions is simply the family of all the projections of points on one of the d {\displaystyle d} coordinates, i.e., F = { h : { 0 , 1 } d → { 0 , 1 } ∣ h ( x ) = x i for some i ∈ { 1 , … , d } } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{h\colon \{0,1\}^{d}\to \{0,1\}\mid h(x)=x_{i}{\text{ for some }}i\in \{1,\ldots ,d\}\}} , where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} . A random function h {\displaystyle h} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} simply selects a random bit from the input point. This family has the following parameters: P 1 = 1 − R / d {\displaystyle P_{1}=1-R/d} , P 2 = 1 − c R / d {\displaystyle P_{2}=1-cR/d} . That is, any two vectors x , y {\displaystyle x,y} with Hamming distance at most R {\displaystyle R} collide under a random h {\displaystyle h} with probability at least P 1 {\displaystyle P_{1}} . Any x , y {\displaystyle x,y} with Hamming distance at least c R {\displaystyle cR} collide with probability at most P 2 {\displaystyle P_{2}} . === Min-wise independent permutations === Suppose U is composed of subsets of some ground set of enumerable items S and the similarity function of interest is the Jaccard index J. If π is a permutation on the indices of S, for A ⊆ S {\displaystyle A\subseteq S} let h ( A ) = min a ∈ A { π ( a ) } {\displaystyle h(A)=\min _{a\in A}\{\pi (a)\}} . Each possible choice of π defines a single hash function h mapping input sets to elements of S. Define the function family H to be the set of all such functions and let D be the uniform distribution. Given two sets A , B ⊆ S {\displaystyle A,B\subseteq S} the event that h ( A ) = h ( B ) {\displaystyle h(A)=h(B)} corresponds exactly to the event that the minimizer of π over A ∪ B {\displaystyle A\cup B} lies inside A ∩ B {\displaystyle A\cap B} . As h was chosen uniformly at random, P r [ h ( A ) = h ( B ) ] = J ( A , B ) {\displaystyle Pr[h(A)=h(B)]=J(A,B)\,} and ( H , D ) {\displaystyle (H,D)\,} define an LSH scheme for the Jaccard index. Because the symmetric group on n elements has size n!, choosing a truly random permutation from the full symmetric group is infeasible for even moderately sized n. Because of this fact, there has been significant work on finding a family of permutations that is "min-wise independent" — a permutation family for which each element of the domain has equal probability of being the minimum under a randomly chosen π. It has been established that a min-wise independent family of permutations is at least of size lcm ⁡ { 1 , 2 , … , n } ≥ e n − o ( n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {lcm} \{\,1,2,\ldots ,n\,\}\geq e^{n-o(n)}} , and that this bound is tight. Because min-wise independent families are too big for practical applications, two variant notions of min-wise independence are introduced: restricted min-wise independent permutations families, and approximate min-wise independent families. Restricted min-wise independence is the min-wise independence property restricted to certain sets of cardinality at most k. Approximate min-wise independence differs from the property by at most a fixed ε. === Open source methods === ==== Nilsimsa Hash ==== Nilsimsa is a locality-sensitive hashing algorithm used in anti-spam efforts. The goal of Nilsimsa is to generate a hash digest of an email message such that the digests of two similar messages are similar to each other. The paper suggests that the Nilsimsa satisfies three requirements: The digest identifying each message should not

  Read more →
• 

  Blockmodeling linked networks

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

  Read more →