AI Face Over

AI Face Over — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Open Syllabus Project

  The Open Syllabus Project (OSP) is an online open-source platform that catalogs and analyzes millions of college syllabi. Founded by researchers from the American Assembly at Columbia University, the OSP has amassed the most extensive collection of searchable syllabi. Since its beta launch in 2016, the OSP has collected over 7 million course syllabi from over 80 countries, primarily by scraping publicly accessible university websites. The project is directed by Joe Karaganis. == History == The OSP was formed by a group of data scientists, sociologists, and digital-humanities researchers at the American Assembly, a public-policy institute based at Columbia University. The OSP was partly funded by the Sloan Foundation and the Arcadia Fund. Joe Karaganis, former vice-president of the American Assembly, serves as the project director of the OSP. The project builds on prior attempts to archive syllabi, such as H-Net, MIT OpenCourseWare, and historian Dan Cohen's defunct Syllabus Finder website (Cohen now sits on the OSP's advisory board). The OSP became a non-profit and independent of the American Assembly in November 2019. In January 2016, the OSP launched a beta version of their "Syllabus Explorer," which they had collected data for since 2013. The Syllabus Explorer allows users to browse and search texts from over one million college course syllabi. The OSP launched a more comprehensive version 2.0 of the Syllabus Explorer in July 2019. The newer version includes an interactive visualization that displays texts as dots on a knowledge map. As of 2022, the OSP has collected over 7 million course syllabi. The Syllabus Explorer represents the "largest collection of searchable syllabi ever amassed." == Methodology == The OSP has collected syllabi data from over 80 countries dating to 2000. The syllabi stem from over 4,000 worldwide institutions. Most of the OSP's data originates from the United States. Canada, Australia, and the U.K also have large datasets. The OSP primarily collects syllabi by scraping publicly accessible university websites. The OSP also allows syllabi submissions from faculty, students, and administrators. The OSP developers use machine learning and natural language processing to extract metadata from such syllabi. Since only metadata is collected, no individual syllabus or personal identifying information is found in the OSP database. The OSP classifies the syllabi into 62 subject fields – corresponding to the U.S. Department of Education's Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP). Additionally, the OSP assigns each text a "teaching score" from 0–100. This score represents the text's percentile rank among citations in the total citation count and is a numerical indicator of the relative frequency of which a particular work is taught. The OSP also has data on which texts are most likely to be assigned together. The developers behind the OSP admit that the database is incomplete and likely contains "a fair number of errors." Karaganis estimates that 80–100 million syllabi exist in the United States alone. The OSP is unable to access syllabi behind private course-management software like Blackboard. == Notable findings == === Anthropology === Using data from the OSP, anthropologist Laurence Ralph uncovered that black anthropologists are "woefully under-represented in (if not erased from) most anthropology syllabi." Black authors wrote less than 1 percent of the top 1,000 assigned works. === Economics === The database indicates Greg Mankiw is the most frequently cited author for college economics courses. === English literature === The OSP found that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was the most widely taught novel in college courses. Additionally, the majority of novels published after 1945 taught in English classes were historical fiction. === Female writers === The most read female writer on college campuses is Kate L. Turabian for her A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations . Turabian is followed by Diana Hacker, Toni Morrison, Jane Austen, and Virginia Woolf. === Film === The most assigned film according to the OSP is the 1929 Soviet documentary film, Man with a Movie Camera. English filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock is the most assigned director in college courses. === History === Historians George Brown Tindall and David Emory Shi's America: A Narrative History is the number one assigned textbook for history, followed by Anne Moody's memoir, Coming of Age in Mississippi. === Philosophy === The most assigned texts in the field of philosophy include Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and Plato's Republic. Plato's Republic was also the second most assigned text in universities in the English-speaking world (only behind Strunk and White's Elements of Style). === Physics === David Halliday's et al. Fundamentals of Physics is the number one ranked physics textbook in the OSP's database. === Political science === Data from the OSP indicates that the dominant political science texts are written almost exclusively by white men and scholars based in the West. In the top 200 most-frequently assigned works, 15 are authored by at least one woman. === Public administration === American president Woodrow Wilson's article "The Study of Administration" was the most frequently assigned text in public affairs and administration syllabi. == Reception == According to William Germano et al., the OSP is a "fascinating resource but is also prone to misrepresenting or at least distracting us from the most important business of a syllabus: communicating with students." Historian William Caferro remarks that the OSP is a "tacit experience of sharing, but a useful one." English professor Bart Beaty writes that, "Despite the many reservations about the completeness of its data, the OSP provides a rare opportunity for scholars to move beyond the anecdotal in discussions of canon-formation in teaching." Media theorist Elizabeth Losh opines that "big data approaches", like the OSP, may "raise troubling questions for instructors about informed consent, pedagogical privacy, and quantified metrics."

  Read more →
• 

  Polynomial kernel

  In machine learning, the polynomial kernel is a kernel function commonly used with support vector machines (SVMs) and other kernelized models, that represents the similarity of vectors (training samples) in a feature space over polynomials of the original variables, allowing learning of non-linear models. Intuitively, the polynomial kernel looks not only at the given features of input samples to determine their similarity, but also combinations of these. In the context of regression analysis, such combinations are known as interaction features. The (implicit) feature space of a polynomial kernel is equivalent to that of polynomial regression, but without the combinatorial blowup in the number of parameters to be learned. When the input features are binary-valued (booleans), then the features correspond to logical conjunctions of input features. == Definition == For degree-d polynomials, the polynomial kernel is defined as K ( x , y ) = ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=(\mathbf {x} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {y} +c)^{d}} where x and y are vectors of size n in the input space, i.e. vectors of features computed from training or test samples and c ≥ 0 is a free parameter trading off the influence of higher-order versus lower-order terms in the polynomial. When c = 0, the kernel is called homogeneous. (A further generalized polykernel divides xTy by a user-specified scalar parameter a.) As a kernel, K corresponds to an inner product in a feature space based on some mapping φ: K ( x , y ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\rangle } The nature of φ can be seen from an example. Let d = 2, so we get the special case of the quadratic kernel. After using the multinomial theorem (twice—the outermost application is the binomial theorem) and regrouping, K ( x , y ) = ( ∑ i = 1 n x i y i + c ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( x i 2 ) ( y i 2 ) + ∑ i = 2 n ∑ j = 1 i − 1 ( 2 x i x j ) ( 2 y i y j ) + ∑ i = 1 n ( 2 c x i ) ( 2 c y i ) + c 2 {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}y_{i}+c\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(x_{i}^{2}\right)\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)+\sum _{i=2}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{i-1}\left({\sqrt {2}}x_{i}x_{j}\right)\left({\sqrt {2}}y_{i}y_{j}\right)+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\sqrt {2c}}x_{i}\right)\left({\sqrt {2c}}y_{i}\right)+c^{2}} From this it follows that the feature map is given by: φ ( x ) = ( x n 2 , … , x 1 2 , 2 x n x n − 1 , … , 2 x n x 1 , 2 x n − 1 x n − 2 , … , 2 x n − 1 x 1 , … , 2 x 2 x 1 , 2 c x n , … , 2 c x 1 , c ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=\left(x_{n}^{2},\ldots ,x_{1}^{2},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{n-1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{1},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{n-2},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{2}x_{1},{\sqrt {2c}}x_{n},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2c}}x_{1},c\right)} generalizing for ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle \left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}} , where x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , y ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and applying the multinomial theorem: ( x T y + c ) d = ∑ j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + 1 = d d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! y 1 j 1 ⋯ y n j n c j n + 1 = φ ( x ) T φ ( y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}&=\sum _{j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n+1}=d}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}y_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots y_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\\&=\varphi (\mathbf {x} )^{T}\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\end{alignedat}}} The last summation has l d = ( n + d d ) {\displaystyle l_{d}={\tbinom {n+d}{d}}} elements, so that: φ ( x ) = ( a 1 , … , a l , … , a l d ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\left(a_{1},\dots ,a_{l},\dots ,a_{l_{d}}\right)} where l = ( j 1 , j 2 , . . . , j n , j n + 1 ) {\displaystyle l=(j_{1},j_{2},...,j_{n},j_{n+1})} and a l = d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 | j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + j n + 1 = d {\displaystyle a_{l}={\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\quad |\quad j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n}+j_{n+1}=d} == Practical use == Although the RBF kernel is more popular in SVM classification than the polynomial kernel, the latter is quite popular in natural language processing (NLP). The most common degree is d = 2 (quadratic), since larger degrees tend to overfit on NLP problems. Various ways of computing the polynomial kernel (both exact and approximate) have been devised as alternatives to the usual non-linear SVM training algorithms, including: full expansion of the kernel prior to training/testing with a linear SVM, i.e. full computation of the mapping φ as in polynomial regression; basket mining (using a variant of the apriori algorithm) for the most commonly occurring feature conjunctions in a training set to produce an approximate expansion; inverted indexing of support vectors. One problem with the polynomial kernel is that it may suffer from numerical instability: when xTy + c < 1, K(x, y) = (xTy + c)d tends to zero with increasing d, whereas when xTy + c > 1, K(x, y) tends to infinity.

  Read more →
• 

  Silhouette (clustering)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Liquid state machine

  A liquid state machine (LSM) is a type of reservoir computer that uses a spiking neural network. An LSM consists of a large collection of units (called nodes, or neurons). Each node receives time varying input from external sources (the inputs) as well as from other nodes. Nodes are randomly connected to each other. The recurrent nature of the connections turns the time varying input into a spatio-temporal pattern of activations in the network nodes. The spatio-temporal patterns of activation are read out by linear discriminant units. The soup of recurrently connected nodes will end up computing a large variety of nonlinear functions on the input. Given a large enough variety of such nonlinear functions, it is theoretically possible to obtain linear combinations (using the read out units) to perform whatever mathematical operation is needed to perform a certain task, such as speech recognition or computer vision. The word liquid in the name comes from the analogy drawn to dropping a stone into a still body of water or other liquid. The falling stone will generate ripples in the liquid. The input (motion of the falling stone) has been converted into a spatio-temporal pattern of liquid displacement (ripples). LSMs have been put forward as a way to explain the operation of brains. LSMs are argued to be an improvement over the theory of artificial neural networks because: Circuits are not hard coded to perform a specific task. Continuous time inputs are handled "naturally". Computations on various time scales can be done using the same network. The same network can perform multiple computations. Criticisms of LSMs as used in computational neuroscience are that LSMs don't actually explain how the brain functions. At best they can replicate some parts of brain functionality. There is no guaranteed way to dissect a working network and figure out how or what computations are being performed. There is very little control over the process. == Universal function approximation == If a reservoir has fading memory and input separability, with help of a readout, it can be proven the liquid state machine is a universal function approximator using Stone–Weierstrass theorem.

  Read more →
• 

  MoltenVK

  MoltenVK is a software library which allows Vulkan applications to run on top of Metal on Apple's macOS, iOS, and tvOS operating systems. It is the first software component to be released for the Vulkan Portability Initiative, a project to have a subset of Vulkan run on platforms lacking native Vulkan drivers. There are some limitations compared with a native Vulkan implementation. == History == MoltenVK was first released as a proprietary and commercially licensed product by The Brenwill Workshop on July 27, 2016. On July 31, 2017, Khronos announced the formation of the Vulkan Portability Technical Subgroup. === Open source === On February 26, 2018, Khronos announced that Vulkan became available on macOS and iOS products through the MoltenVK library. Valve announced that Dota 2 will run on macOS using the Vulkan API with the aid of MoltenVK, and that they had made an arrangement with developer The Brenwill Workshop Ltd to release MoltenVK as open-source software under the Apache License version 2.0. On May 30, 2018, Qt was updated with Vulkan for Qt on macOS using MoltenVK. On May 31, 2018, optional Vulkan support for Dota 2 on macOS was released. Benchmarks for the game were available the following day, showing better performance using Vulkan and MoltenVK compared to OpenGL. On July 20, 2018, Wine was updated with Vulkan support on macOS using MoltenVK. On 29 July 2018, the first app using MoltenVK was accepted onto the App Store, after initially being rejected. On 6 August 2018, Google open-sourced Filament, a crossplatform real-time physically based rendering engine with MoltenVK for macOS/iOS. On November 28, 2018, Valve released Artifact, their first Vulkan-only game on macOS using MoltenVK. === Version 1.0 === On 29 January 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.32 was released with early prototype of Vulkan Portability Extensions. RPCS3 and Dolphin emulators were updated with Vulkan support on macOS using MoltenVK. On 13 April 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.34 was released with support for tessellation. On July 30, 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.36 was released targeting Metal 3.0. On July 31, 2020, MoltenVK 1.0.44 was released, adding support for the tvOS platform. On January 23, 2020, MoltenVK was updated to support for some of the new features of Vulkan 1.2, as of Vulkan SDK 1.2.121. === Version 1.1 === On October 1, 2020, MoltenVK 1.1.0 was released, adding full support for Vulkan 1.1, as of Vulkan SDK 1.2.154. On 9 December 2020, MoltenVK 1.1.1 was released, providing support for Vulkan on Apple silicon GPUs and support for the Mac Catalyst platform for porting iOS/iPadOS apps to macOS. === Version 1.2 === On October 18, 2022, MoltenVK 1.2.0 was released, adding full support for Vulkan 1.2 as of Vulkan SDK 1.3.231. In January 2023, MoltenVK 1.2.2 added support for Vulkan as of SDK 1.3.239, while this version of Vulkan SDK fixed some issues with the interconnectivity with Metal API, while version 1.2.3 supported some additional extensions. === Version 1.3 === On May 1, 2025, MoltenVK 1.3 was released with support for Vulkan 1.3. === Version 1.4 === On August 20, 2025, MoltenVK 1.4 was released with support for Vulkan 1.4.

  Read more →
• 

  Operational taxonomic unit

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

  Read more →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Quadratic classifier

  In statistics, a quadratic classifier is a statistical classifier that uses a quadratic decision surface to separate measurements of two or more classes of objects or events. It is a more general version of the linear classifier. == The classification problem == Statistical classification considers a set of vectors of observations x of an object or event, each of which has a known type y. This set is referred to as the training set. The problem is then to determine, for a given new observation vector, what the best class should be. For a quadratic classifier, the correct solution is assumed to be quadratic in the measurements, so y will be decided based on x T A x + b T x + c {\displaystyle \mathbf {x^{T}Ax} +\mathbf {b^{T}x} +c} In the special case where each observation consists of two measurements, this means that the surfaces separating the classes will be conic sections (i.e., either a line, a circle or ellipse, a parabola or a hyperbola). In this sense, we can state that a quadratic model is a generalization of the linear model, and its use is justified by the desire to extend the classifier's ability to represent more complex separating surfaces. == Quadratic discriminant analysis == Quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) is closely related to linear discriminant analysis (LDA), where it is assumed that the measurements from each class are normally distributed. Unlike LDA however, in QDA there is no assumption that the covariance of each of the classes is identical. When the normality assumption is true, the best possible test for the hypothesis that a given measurement is from a given class is the likelihood ratio test. Suppose there are only two groups, with means μ 0 , μ 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{0},\mu _{1}} and covariance matrices Σ 0 , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0},\Sigma _{1}} corresponding to y = 0 {\displaystyle y=0} and y = 1 {\displaystyle y=1} respectively. Then the likelihood ratio is given by Likelihood ratio = | 2 π Σ 1 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x − μ 1 ) ) | 2 π Σ 0 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x − μ 0 ) ) < t {\displaystyle {\text{Likelihood ratio}}={\frac {{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{1}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})^{T}\Sigma _{1}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})\right)}{{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{0}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})^{T}\Sigma _{0}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})\right)}} Read more →

• 

  Feature hashing

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

  Read more →
• 

  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 →

• 

  Multi-surface method

  The multi-surface method (MSM) is a form of decision making using the concept of piecewise-linear separability of datasets to categorize data. == Introduction == Two datasets are linearly separable if their convex hulls do not intersect. The method may be formulated as a feedforward neural network with weights that are trained via linear programming. Comparisons between neural networks trained with the MSM versus backpropagation show MSM is better able to classify data. The decision problem associated linear program for the MSM is NP-complete. == Mathematical formulation == Given two finite disjoint point sets A , B ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A,B}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , find a discriminant, f : R n → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } such that f ( A ) > 0 , f ( B ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle f({\mathcal {A}})>0,f({\mathcal {B}})\leq 0} . If the intersection of convex hulls of the two sets is the empty set, then it is possible to use a single linear program to obtain a linear discriminant of the form, f ( x ) = c x + γ {\displaystyle f(x)=cx+\gamma } . Usually, in real applications, the sets' convex hulls do intersect, and a (often non-convex) piecewise-linear discriminant can be used, through the use of several linear programs.

  Read more →
• 

  Correlation clustering

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

  Read more →
• 

  Legal information retrieval

  Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based

  Read more →
• 

  Optical neural network

  An optical neural network is a physical implementation of an artificial neural network with optical components. Early optical neural networks used a photorefractive Volume hologram to interconnect arrays of input neurons to arrays of output with synaptic weights in proportion to the multiplexed hologram's strength. Volume holograms were further multiplexed using spectral hole burning to add one dimension of wavelength to space to achieve four dimensional interconnects of two dimensional arrays of neural inputs and outputs. This research led to extensive research on alternative methods using the strength of the optical interconnect for implementing neuronal communications. Some artificial neural networks that have been implemented as optical neural networks include the Hopfield neural network and the Kohonen self-organizing map with liquid crystal spatial light modulators Optical neural networks can also be based on the principles of neuromorphic engineering, creating neuromorphic photonic systems. Typically, these systems encode information in the networks using spikes, mimicking the functionality of spiking neural networks in optical and photonic hardware. Photonic devices that have demonstrated neuromorphic functionalities include (among others) vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers, integrated photonic modulators, optoelectronic systems based on superconducting Josephson junctions or systems based on resonant tunnelling diodes. == Electrochemical vs. optical neural networks == Biological neural networks function on an electrochemical basis, while optical neural networks use electromagnetic waves. Optical interfaces to biological neural networks can be created with optogenetics, but is not the same as an optical neural networks. In biological neural networks there exist a lot of different mechanisms for dynamically changing the state of the neurons, these include short-term and long-term synaptic plasticity. Synaptic plasticity is among the electrophysiological phenomena used to control the efficiency of synaptic transmission, long-term for learning and memory, and short-term for short transient changes in synaptic transmission efficiency. Implementing this with optical components is difficult, and ideally requires advanced photonic materials. Properties that might be desirable in photonic materials for optical neural networks include the ability to change their efficiency of transmitting light, based on the intensity of incoming light. == Rising Era of Optical Neural Networks == With the increasing significance of computer vision in various domains, the computational cost of these tasks has increased, making it more important to develop the new approaches of the processing acceleration. Optical computing has emerged as a potential alternative to GPU acceleration for modern neural networks, particularly considering the looming obsolescence of Moore's Law. Consequently, optical neural networks have garnered increased attention in the research community. Presently, two primary methods of optical neural computing are under research: silicon photonics-based and free-space optics. Each approach has its benefits and drawbacks; while silicon photonics may offer superior speed, it lacks the massive parallelism that free-space optics can deliver. Given the substantial parallelism capabilities of free-space optics, researchers have focused on taking advantage of it. One implementation, proposed by Lin et al., involves the training and fabrication of phase masks for a handwritten digit classifier. By stacking 3D-printed phase masks, light passing through the fabricated network can be read by a photodetector array of ten detectors, each representing a digit class ranging from 1 to 10. Although this network can achieve terahertz-range classification, it lacks flexibility, as the phase masks are fabricated for a specific task and cannot be retrained. An alternative method for classification in free-space optics, introduced by Cahng et al., employs a 4F system that is based on the convolution theorem to perform convolution operations. This system uses two lenses to execute the Fourier transforms of the convolution operation, enabling passive conversion into the Fourier domain without power consumption or latency. However, the convolution operation kernels in this implementation are also fabricated phase masks, limiting the device's functionality to specific convolutional layers of the network only. In contrast, Li et al. proposed a technique involving kernel tiling to use the parallelism of the 4F system while using a Digital Micromirror Device (DMD) instead of a phase mask. This approach allows users to upload various kernels into the 4F system and execute the entire network's inference on a single device. Unfortunately, modern neural networks are not designed for the 4F systems, as they were primarily developed during the CPU/GPU era. Mostly because they tend to use a lower resolution and a high number of channels in their feature maps. == Other Implementations == In 2007 there was one model of Optical Neural Network: the Programmable Optical Array/Analogic Computer (POAC). It had been implemented in the year 2000 and reported based on modified Joint Fourier Transform Correlator (JTC) and Bacteriorhodopsin (BR) as a holographic optical memory. Full parallelism, large array size and the speed of light are three promises offered by POAC to implement an optical CNN. They had been investigated during the last years with their practical limitations and considerations yielding the design of the first portable POAC version. The practical details – hardware (optical setups) and software (optical templates) – were published. However, POAC is a general purpose and programmable array computer that has a wide range of applications including: image processing pattern recognition target tracking real-time video processing document security optical switching == Progress in the 2020s == Taichi from Tsinghua University in Beijing is a hybrid ONN that combines the power efficiency and parallelism of optical diffraction and the configurability of optical interference. Taichi offers 13.96 million parameters. Taichi avoids the high error rates that afflict deep (multi-layer) networks by combining clusters of fewer-layer diffractive units with arrays of interferometers for reconfigurable computation. Its encoding protocol divides large network models into sub-models that can be distributed across multiple chiplets in parallel. Taichi achieved 91.89% accuracy in tests with the Omniglot database. It was also used to generate music Bach and generate images the styles of Van Gogh and Munch. The developers claimed energy efficiency of up to 160 trillion operations second−1 watt−1 and an area efficiency of 880 trillion multiply-accumulate operations mm−2 or 103 more energy efficient than the NVIDIA H100, and 102 times more energy efficient and 10 times more area efficient than previous ONNs. Time dimension has recently been introduced into diffractive neural network by fs laser lithography of perovskite hydration. The temporal behaviour of the neuron can be modulated by the fs laser at the nanoscale, enabling a programmable holographic neural network with temporal evolution functionality, i.e., the functionality can change with time under the hydration stimuli. An in-memory temporal inference functionality was demonstrated to mimic the function evolution of the human brain, i.e., the functionality can change from simple digit image classification to more complicated digit and clothing product image classification with time. This is the first time of introducing time dimension into the optical neural network, laying a foundation for future brain-like photonic chip development.

  Read more →
• 

  Mean squared error

  In statistics, the mean squared error (MSE) or mean squared deviation (MSD) of an estimator (of a procedure for estimating an unobserved quantity) measures the average of the squares of the errors—that is, the average squared difference between the estimated values and the true value. MSE is a risk function, corresponding to the expected value of the squared error loss. The fact that MSE is almost always strictly positive (and not zero) is because of randomness or because the estimator does not account for information that could produce a more accurate estimate. In machine learning, specifically empirical risk minimization, MSE may refer to the empirical risk (the average loss on an observed data set), as an estimate of the true MSE (the true risk: the average loss on the actual population distribution). The MSE is a measure of the quality of an estimator. As it is derived from the square of Euclidean distance, it is always a positive value that decreases as the error approaches zero. The MSE is the second moment (about the origin) of the error, and thus incorporates both the variance of the estimator (how widely spread the estimates are from one data sample to another) and its bias (how far off the average estimated value is from the true value). For an unbiased estimator, the MSE is the variance of the estimator. Like the variance, MSE has the same units of measurement as the square of the quantity being estimated. In an analogy to standard deviation, taking the square root of MSE yields the root-mean-square error or root-mean-square deviation (RMSE or RMSD), which has the same units as the quantity being estimated; for an unbiased estimator, the RMSE is the square root of the variance, known as the standard error. == Definition and basic properties == The MSE either assesses the quality of a predictor (i.e., a function mapping arbitrary inputs to a sample of values of some random variable), or of an estimator (i.e., a mathematical function mapping a sample of data to an estimate of a parameter of the population from which the data is sampled). In the context of prediction, understanding the prediction interval can also be useful as it provides a range within which a future observation will fall, with a certain probability. The definition of an MSE differs according to whether one is describing a predictor or an estimator. === Predictor === If a vector of n {\displaystyle n} predictions is generated from a sample of n {\displaystyle n} data points on all variables, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the vector of observed values of the variable being predicted, with Y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {Y}}} being the predicted values (e.g. as from a least-squares fit), then the within-sample MSE of the predictor is computed as MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} In other words, the MSE is the mean ( 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ) {\textstyle \left({\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\right)} of the squares of the errors ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\textstyle \left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} . This is an easily computable quantity for a particular sample (and hence is sample-dependent). In matrix notation, MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( e i ) 2 = 1 n e T e {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(e_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\mathbf {e} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {e} } where e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} is Y i − Y i ^ {\displaystyle Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}} and e {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} } is a n × 1 {\displaystyle n\times 1} column vector. The MSE can also be computed on q data points that were not used in estimating the model, either because they were held back for this purpose, or because these data have been newly obtained. Within this process, known as cross-validation, the MSE is often called the test MSE, and is computed as MSE = 1 q ∑ i = n + 1 n + q ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{q}}\sum _{i=n+1}^{n+q}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} === Estimator === The MSE of an estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} with respect to an unknown parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } is defined as MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right].} This definition depends on the unknown parameter, therefore the MSE is a priori property of an estimator. The MSE could be a function of unknown parameters, in which case any estimator of the MSE based on estimates of these parameters would be a function of the data (and thus a random variable). If the estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is derived as a sample statistic and is used to estimate some population parameter, then the expectation is with respect to the sampling distribution of the sample statistic. The MSE can be written as the sum of the variance of the estimator and the squared bias of the estimator, providing a useful way to calculate the MSE and implying that in the case of unbiased estimators, the MSE and variance are equivalent. MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} ({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}.} ==== Proof of variance and bias relationship ==== MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] + E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 + 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + E θ ⁡ [ 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ] + E θ ⁡ [ ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias θ ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}+2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[{\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta ={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\\&=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}\end{aligned}}} An even shorter proof can be achieved using the well-known formula that for a random variable X {\textstyle X} , E ( X 2 ) = Var ⁡ ( X ) + ( E ( X ) ) 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {E} (X^{2})=\operatorname {Var} (X)+(\mathbb {E} (X))^{2}} . By substituting X {\textstyle X} with, θ ^ − θ {\textstyle {\hat {\theta }}-\theta } , we have MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ − θ ) + ( E [ θ ^ − θ ] ) 2 = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias 2 ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\mathbb {E} [({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}]\\&=\operator

  Read more →