AI For Business Edinburgh

AI For Business Edinburgh — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Afghan Girls Robotics Team

  The Afghan Girls Robotics Team, also known as the Afghan Dreamers, is an all-girl robotics team from Herat, Afghanistan, founded through the Digital Citizen Fund (DCF) in 2017 by Roya Mahboob and Alireza Mehraban. It is made up of girls between ages 12 and 18 and their mentors. Several members of the team were relocated to Qatar and Mexico by humanitarian and tech entrepreneur Sarah Porter following the fall of Kabul in August 2021. A documentary film featuring members of the team, titled Afghan Dreamers, was released by MTV Documentary Films in 2023. == Origins == The Afghan Girls Robotics Team was co-founded in 2017 by Roya Mahboob, who is their coach, mentor and sponsor, and founder of the Digital Citizen Fund (DCF), which is the parent organization for the team. Dean Kamen was planning a 2017 competition in the United States and had recruited Mahboob to form a team from Afghanistan. Out of 150 girls, 12 were selected for the first team. Before parts were sent by Kamen, they trained in the basement of the home of Mahboob's parents, with scrap metal and without safety equipment under the guidance of their coach, Mahboob's brother Alireza Mehraban, who is also a co-founder of the team. == 2017 and 2018 == In 2017, six members of the Afghan Girls Robotics Team traveled to the United States to participate in the international FIRST Global Challenge robotics competition. Their visas were rejected twice after they made two journeys from Herat to Kabul through Taliban-controlled areas, before officials in the United States government intervened to allow them to enter the United States. Customs officials also detained their robotics kits, which left them two weeks to construct their robot, unlike some teams that had more time. They were awarded a Silver medal for Courageous Achievement. One week after they returned home from the competition, the father of team captain Fatemah Qaderyan, Mohammad Asif Qaderyan, was killed in a suicide bombing. After their United States visas expired, the team participated in competitions in Estonia and Istanbul. Three of the 12 members participated in the 2017 Entrepreneurial Challenge at the Robotex festival in Estonia, and won the competition for their solar-powered robot designed to assist farmers. In 2018, the team trained in Canada, continued to travel in the United States for months and participate in competitions. == 2019 == The Afghan Girls Robotics team had aspirations to develop a science and technology school for girls in Afghanistan. Roya Mahboob interfaced with the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), the School of Architecture, and the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies Yale University to design the infrastructure for what they named The Dreamer Institute. == 2020 == In March 2020, the governor of Herat at the time, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Afghanistan and a scarcity of ventilators, sought help with the design of low-cost ventilators, and the Afghan Girls Robotics Team was one of six teams contacted by the government. Using a design from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and with guidance from MIT engineers and Douglas Chin, a surgeon in California, the team developed a prototype with Toyota Corolla parts and a chain drive from a Honda motorcycle. UNICEF also supported the team with the acquisition of necessary parts during the three months they spent building the prototype that was completed in July 2020. Their design costs around $500 compared to $50,000 for a ventilator. In December 2020, Minister of Industry and Commerce Nizar Ahmad Ghoryani donated funding and obtained land for a factory to produce the ventilators. Under the direction of their mentor Roya Mahboob, the Afghan Dreamers also designed a UVC Robot for sanitization, and a Spray Robot for disinfection, both of which were approved by the Ministry of Health for production. == 2021 == In early August 2021, Somaya Faruqi, former captain of the team, was quoted by Public Radio International about the future of Afghanistan, stating, "We don’t support any group over another but for us what’s important is that we be able to continue our work. Women in Afghanistan have made a lot of progress over the past two decades and this progress must be respected." On August 17, 2021, the Afghan Girls Robotics Team and their coaches were reported to be attempting to evacuate, but unable to obtain a flight out of Afghanistan, and a lawyer appealed to Canada for assistance regarding the evacuation of the team members. As of August 19, 2021, nine members of the team and their coaches had evacuated to Qatar. The founder of the team, Roya Mahboob, and DCF board member, Elizabeth Schaeffer Brown, were previously in contact with the Qatari government to assist the team members in their evacuation from Afghanistan. By August 25, 2021, some members arrived in Mexico. Saghar, a team member who evacuated to Mexico, said, "We wanted to continue the path that we started to continue to go for our achievements and to go for having our dreams through reality. So that's why we decided to leave Afghanistan and go for somewhere safe" in an interview with The Associated Press. The members who have left Afghanistan participated in an online robotics competition in September and plan to continue their education. A documentary film titled Afghan Dreamers, produced by Beth Murphy and directed by David Greenwald, was in post-production when the team began to evacuate. == 2022 == The Afghan Dreamers were involved in a training program at the Texas A&M University at Qatar’s STEM Hub. == 2023 == The Afghan Girls Robotics Team had a booth at the 5th UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries, where they displayed some of the robots the team had constructed. == Afghan Dreamers documentary == The Afghan Dreamers documentary from MTV Documentary Films premiered in May 2023 on Paramount+. The film was directed by David Greenwald and produced by David Cowan and Beth Murphy. In a review for Screen Daily, Wendy Ide wrote, "This film, with its likeable cast of girl nerds and positive message, should enjoy a warm reception on the festival circuit, and will be of particular interest to events seeking to showcase women's stories from around the world. It also serves as a timely cautionary tale – a case study on just how quickly the rights and the opportunities of women can be curtailed, at the behest of the men in power." == Honors and awards == 2017 Silver medal for Courageous Achievement at the FIRST Global Challenge, science and technology 2017 Benefiting Humanity in AI Award at World Summit AI 2017 Winner, Entrepreneurship Challenge at Robotex in Estonia 2018 Permission to Dream Award, Raw Film Festival 2018 Conrad Innovation Challenge, Raw Film Festival 2018 Rookie All Star – District Championship, Canada 2018 Asia Game Changer Award Honoree 2019 Inspiring in Engineering Award – FIRST Detroit World Championship 2019 Asia Game Changer Award of California 2019 Safety Award – FIRST Global, Dubai 2021 Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia 2022 World Championships, Genoa, Switzerland

  Read more →
• 

  Evolutionary multimodal optimization

  In applied mathematics, multimodal optimization deals with optimization tasks that involve finding all or most of the multiple (at least locally optimal) solutions of a problem, as opposed to a single best solution. Evolutionary multimodal optimization is a branch of evolutionary computation, which is closely related to machine learning. Wong provides a short survey, wherein the chapter of Shir and the book of Preuss cover the topic in more detail. == Motivation == Knowledge of multiple solutions to an optimization task is especially helpful in engineering, when due to physical (and/or cost) constraints, the best results may not always be realizable. In such a scenario, if multiple solutions (locally and/or globally optimal) are known, the implementation can be quickly switched to another solution and still obtain the best possible system performance. Multiple solutions could also be analyzed to discover hidden properties (or relationships) of the underlying optimization problem, which makes them important for obtaining domain knowledge. In addition, the algorithms for multimodal optimization usually not only locate multiple optima in a single run, but also preserve their population diversity, resulting in their global optimization ability on multimodal functions. Moreover, the techniques for multimodal optimization are usually borrowed as diversity maintenance techniques to other problems. == Background == Classical techniques of optimization would need multiple restart points and multiple runs in the hope that a different solution may be discovered every run, with no guarantee however. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) due to their population based approach, provide a natural advantage over classical optimization techniques. They maintain a population of possible solutions, which are processed every generation, and if the multiple solutions can be preserved over all these generations, then at termination of the algorithm we will have multiple good solutions, rather than only the best solution. Note that this is against the natural tendency of classical optimization techniques, which will always converge to the best solution, or a sub-optimal solution (in a rugged, “badly behaving” function). Finding and maintenance of multiple solutions is wherein lies the challenge of using EAs for multi-modal optimization. Niching is a generic term referred to as the technique of finding and preserving multiple stable niches, or favorable parts of the solution space possibly around multiple solutions, so as to prevent convergence to a single solution. The field of Evolutionary algorithms encompasses genetic algorithms (GAs), evolution strategy (ES), differential evolution (DE), particle swarm optimization (PSO), and other methods. Attempts have been made to solve multi-modal optimization in all these realms and most, if not all the various methods implement niching in some form or the other. == Multimodal optimization using genetic algorithms/evolution strategies == De Jong's crowding method, Goldberg's sharing function approach, Petrowski's clearing method, restricted mating, maintaining multiple subpopulations are some of the popular approaches that have been proposed by the community. The first two methods are especially well studied, however, they do not perform explicit separation into solutions belonging to different basins of attraction. The application of multimodal optimization within ES was not explicit for many years, and has been explored only recently. A niching framework utilizing derandomized ES was introduced by Shir, proposing the CMA-ES as a niching optimizer for the first time. The underpinning of that framework was the selection of a peak individual per subpopulation in each generation, followed by its sampling to produce the consecutive dispersion of search-points. The biological analogy of this machinery is an alpha-male winning all the imposed competitions and dominating thereafter its ecological niche, which then obtains all the sexual resources therein to generate its offspring. Recently, an evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) approach was proposed, in which a suitable second objective is added to the originally single objective multimodal optimization problem, so that the multiple solutions form a weak pareto-optimal front. Hence, the multimodal optimization problem can be solved for its multiple solutions using an EMO algorithm. Improving upon their work, the same authors have made their algorithm self-adaptive, thus eliminating the need for pre-specifying the parameters. An approach that does not use any radius for separating the population into subpopulations (or species) but employs the space topology instead is proposed in.

  Read more →
• 

  Radial basis function kernel

  In machine learning, the radial basis function kernel, or RBF kernel, is a popular kernel function used in various kernelized learning algorithms. In particular, it is commonly used in support vector machine classification. The RBF kernel on two samples x , x ′ ∈ R k {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} \in \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , represented as feature vectors in some input space, is defined as K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 2 σ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}\right)} ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}} may be recognized as the squared Euclidean distance between the two feature vectors. σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a free parameter. An equivalent definition involves a parameter γ = 1 2 σ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \gamma ={\tfrac {1}{2\sigma ^{2}}}} : K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ⁡ ( − γ ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp(-\gamma \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2})} Since the value of the RBF kernel decreases with distance and ranges between zero (in the infinite-distance limit) and one (when x = x'), it has a ready interpretation as a similarity measure. The feature space of the kernel has an infinite number of dimensions; for σ = 1 {\displaystyle \sigma =1} , its expansion using the multinomial theorem is: exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ⁡ ( 2 2 x ⊤ x ′ − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ⁡ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) j j ! exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ∑ n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) x ′ 1 n 1 ⋯ x ′ k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)&=\exp \left({\frac {2}{2}}\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} -{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\exp \left(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} \right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} )^{j}}{j!}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }\quad \sum _{n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right){\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right){\frac {{x'}_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots {x'}_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\\[5pt]&=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \end{alignedat}}} φ ( x ) = exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) ( a ℓ 0 ( 0 ) , a 1 ( 1 ) , … , a ℓ 1 ( 1 ) , … , a 1 ( j ) , … , a ℓ j ( j ) , … ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\left(a_{\ell _{0}}^{(0)},a_{1}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{1}}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{1}^{(j)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{j}}^{(j)},\dots \right)} where ℓ j = ( k + j − 1 j ) {\displaystyle \ell _{j}={\tbinom {k+j-1}{j}}} , a ℓ ( j ) = x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! | n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j ∧ 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ ℓ j {\displaystyle a_{\ell }^{(j)}={\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\quad |\quad n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j\wedge 1\leq \ell \leq \ell _{j}} == Approximations == Because support vector machines and other models employing the kernel trick do not scale well to large numbers of training samples or large numbers of features in the input space, several approximations to the RBF kernel (and similar kernels) have been introduced. Typically, these take the form of a function z that maps a single vector to a vector of higher dimensionality, approximating the kernel: ⟨ z ( x ) , z ( x ′ ) ⟩ ≈ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ = K ( x , x ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle z(\mathbf {x} ),z(\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \approx \langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle =K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )} where φ {\displaystyle \textstyle \varphi } is the implicit mapping embedded in the RBF kernel. === Fourier random features === One way to construct such a z is to randomly sample from the Fourier transformation of the kernel φ ( x ) = 1 D [ cos ⁡ ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , … , cos ⁡ ⟨ w D , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ w D , x ⟩ ] T {\displaystyle \varphi (x)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {D}}}[\cos \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\ldots ,\cos \langle w_{D},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{D},x\rangle ]^{T}} where w 1 , . . . , w D {\displaystyle w_{1},...,w_{D}} are independent samples from the normal distribution N ( 0 , σ − 2 I ) {\displaystyle N(0,\sigma ^{-2}I)} . Theorem: E ⁡ [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = e ‖ x − y ‖ 2 / ( 2 σ 2 ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=e^{\|x-y\|^{2}/(2\sigma ^{2})}.} Proof: It suffices to prove the case of D = 1 {\displaystyle D=1} . Use the trigonometric identity cos ⁡ ( a − b ) = cos ⁡ ( a ) cos ⁡ ( b ) + sin ⁡ ( a ) sin ⁡ ( b ) {\displaystyle \cos(a-b)=\cos(a)\cos(b)+\sin(a)\sin(b)} , the spherical symmetry of Gaussian distribution, then evaluate the integral ∫ − ∞ ∞ cos ⁡ ( k x ) e − x 2 / 2 2 π d x = e − k 2 / 2 . {\displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\frac {\cos(kx)e^{-x^{2}/2}}{\sqrt {2\pi }}}dx=e^{-k^{2}/2}.} Theorem: Var ⁡ [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = O ( D − 1 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=O(D^{-1})} . (Appendix A.2). === Nyström method === Another approach uses the Nyström method to approximate the eigendecomposition of the Gram matrix K, using only a random sample of the training set.

  Read more →
• 

  K-nearest neighbors algorithm

  In statistics, the k-nearest neighbors algorithm (k-NN) is a non-parametric supervised learning method. It was first developed by Evelyn Fix and Joseph Hodges in 1951, and later expanded by Thomas Cover. In classification, a new example is assigned a label based on the labels of its k nearest training examples; in regression, the prediction is computed from the values of those neighbors. Most often, it is used for classification, as a k-NN classifier, the output of which is a class membership. An object is classified by a plurality vote of its neighbors, with the object being assigned to the class most common among its k nearest neighbors (k is a positive integer, typically small). If k = 1, then the object is simply assigned to the class of that single nearest neighbor. The k-NN algorithm can also be generalized for regression. In k-NN regression, also known as nearest neighbor smoothing, the output is the property value for the object. This value is the average of the values of k nearest neighbors. If k = 1, then the output is simply assigned to the value of that single nearest neighbor, also known as nearest neighbor interpolation. For both classification and regression, a useful technique can be to assign weights to the contributions of the neighbors, so that nearer neighbors contribute more to the average than distant ones. For example, a common weighting scheme consists of giving each neighbor a weight of 1/d, where d is the distance to the neighbor. The input consists of the k closest training examples in a data set. The neighbors are taken from a set of objects for which the class (for k-NN classification) or the object property value (for k-NN regression) is known. This can be thought of as the training set for the algorithm, though no explicit training step is required. A peculiarity (sometimes even a disadvantage) of the k-NN algorithm is its sensitivity to the local structure of the data. In k-NN classification the function is only approximated locally and all computation is deferred until function evaluation. Since this algorithm relies on distance, if the features represent different physical units or come in vastly different scales, then feature-wise normalizing of the training data can greatly improve its accuracy. == Statistical setting == Suppose we have pairs ( X 1 , Y 1 ) , ( X 2 , Y 2 ) , … , ( X n , Y n ) {\displaystyle (X_{1},Y_{1}),(X_{2},Y_{2}),\dots ,(X_{n},Y_{n})} taking values in R d × { 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}\times \{1,2\}} , where Y is the class label of X, so that X | Y = r ∼ P r {\displaystyle X|Y=r\sim P_{r}} for r = 1 , 2 {\displaystyle r=1,2} (and probability distributions P r {\displaystyle P_{r}} ). Given some norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} on R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} and a point x ∈ R d {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , let ( X ( 1 ) , Y ( 1 ) ) , … , ( X ( n ) , Y ( n ) ) {\displaystyle (X_{(1)},Y_{(1)}),\dots ,(X_{(n)},Y_{(n)})} be a reordering of the training data such that ‖ X ( 1 ) − x ‖ ≤ ⋯ ≤ ‖ X ( n ) − x ‖ {\displaystyle \|X_{(1)}-x\|\leq \dots \leq \|X_{(n)}-x\|} . == Algorithm == The training examples are vectors in a multidimensional feature space, each with a class label. The training phase of the algorithm consists only of storing the feature vectors and class labels of the training samples. In the classification phase, k is a user-defined constant, and an unlabeled vector (a query or test point) is classified by assigning the label which is most frequent among the k training samples nearest to that query point. A commonly used distance metric for continuous variables is Euclidean distance. For discrete variables, such as for text classification, another metric can be used, such as the overlap metric (or Hamming distance). In the context of gene expression microarray data, for example, k-NN has been employed with correlation coefficients, such as Pearson and Spearman, as a metric. Often, the classification accuracy of k-NN can be improved significantly if the distance metric is learned with specialized algorithms such as large margin nearest neighbor or neighborhood components analysis. A drawback of the basic "majority voting" classification occurs when the class distribution is skewed. That is, examples of a more frequent class tend to dominate the prediction of the new example, because they tend to be common among the k nearest neighbors due to their large number. One way to overcome this problem is to weight the classification, taking into account the distance from the test point to each of its k nearest neighbors. The class (or value, in regression problems) of each of the k nearest points is multiplied by a weight proportional to the inverse of the distance from that point to the test point. Another way to overcome skew is by abstraction in data representation. For example, in a self-organizing map (SOM), each node is a representative (a center) of a cluster of similar points, regardless of their density in the original training data. k-NN can then be applied to the SOM. == Parameter selection == The best choice of k depends upon the data; generally, larger values of k reduces effect of the noise on the classification, but make boundaries between classes less distinct. A good k can be selected by various heuristic techniques (see hyperparameter optimization). The special case where the class is predicted to be the class of the closest training sample (i.e. when k = 1) is called the nearest neighbor algorithm. The accuracy of the k-NN algorithm can be severely degraded by the presence of noisy or irrelevant features, or if the feature scales are not consistent with their importance. Much research effort has been put into selecting or scaling features to improve classification. A particularly popular approach is the use of evolutionary algorithms to optimize feature scaling. Another popular approach is to scale features by the mutual information of the training data with the training classes. In binary (two class) classification problems, it is helpful to choose k to be an odd number as this avoids tied votes. One popular way of choosing the empirically optimal k in this setting is via bootstrap method. == The 1-nearest neighbor classifier == The most intuitive nearest neighbour type classifier is the one nearest neighbour classifier that assigns a point x to the class of its closest neighbour in the feature space, that is C n 1 n n ( x ) = Y ( 1 ) {\displaystyle C_{n}^{1nn}(x)=Y_{(1)}} . As the size of training data set approaches infinity, the one nearest neighbour classifier guarantees an error rate of no worse than twice the Bayes error rate (the minimum achievable error rate given the distribution of the data). == The weighted nearest neighbour classifier == The k-nearest neighbour classifier can be viewed as assigning the k nearest neighbours a weight 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} and all others 0 weight. This can be generalised to weighted nearest neighbour classifiers. That is, where the ith nearest neighbour is assigned a weight w n i {\displaystyle w_{ni}} , with ∑ i = 1 n w n i = 1 {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}=1} . An analogous result on the strong consistency of weighted nearest neighbour classifiers also holds. Let C n w n n {\displaystyle C_{n}^{wnn}} denote the weighted nearest classifier with weights { w n i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{w_{ni}\}_{i=1}^{n}} . Subject to regularity conditions, which in asymptotic theory are conditional variables which require assumptions to differentiate among parameters with some criteria. On the class distributions the excess risk has the following asymptotic expansion R R ( C n w n n ) − R R ( C Bayes ) = ( B 1 s n 2 + B 2 t n 2 ) { 1 + o ( 1 ) } , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {R}}_{\mathcal {R}}(C_{n}^{wnn})-{\mathcal {R}}_{\mathcal {R}}(C^{\text{Bayes}})=\left(B_{1}s_{n}^{2}+B_{2}t_{n}^{2}\right)\{1+o(1)\},} for constants B 1 {\displaystyle B_{1}} and B 2 {\displaystyle B_{2}} where s n 2 = ∑ i = 1 n w n i 2 {\displaystyle s_{n}^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}^{2}} and t n = n − 2 / d ∑ i = 1 n w n i { i 1 + 2 / d − ( i − 1 ) 1 + 2 / d } {\displaystyle t_{n}=n^{-2/d}\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}\left\{i^{1+2/d}-(i-1)^{1+2/d}\right\}} . The optimal weighting scheme { w n i ∗ } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{w_{ni}^{}\}_{i=1}^{n}} , that balances the two terms in the display above, is given as follows: set k ∗ = ⌊ B n 4 d + 4 ⌋ {\displaystyle k^{}=\lfloor Bn^{\frac {4}{d+4}}\rfloor } , w n i ∗ = 1 k ∗ [ 1 + d 2 − d 2 k ∗ 2 / d { i 1 + 2 / d − ( i − 1 ) 1 + 2 / d } ] {\displaystyle w_{ni}^{}={\frac {1}{k^{}}}\left[1+{\frac {d}{2}}-{\frac {d}{2{k^{}}^{2/d}}}\{i^{1+2/d}-(i-1)^{1+2/d}\}\right]} for i = 1 , 2 , … , k ∗ {\displaystyle i=1,2,\dots ,k^{}} and w n i ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle w_{ni}^{}=0} for i = k ∗ + 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=k^{}+1,\dots ,n} . With optimal weights the dominant term in the asymptotic expansion of the excess risk is O ( n − 4 d + 4 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n^{-{\frac {4}{d+4}}})}

  Read more →
• 

  Logic form

  Logic forms are simple, first-order logic knowledge representations of natural language sentences formed by the conjunction of concept predicates related through shared arguments. Each noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition and conjunction generates a predicate. Logic forms can be decorated with word senses to disambiguate the semantics of the word. There are two types of predicates: events are marked with e, and entities are marked with x. The shared arguments connect the subjects and objects of verbs and prepositions together. Example input/output might look like this: Input: The Earth provides the food we eat every day. Output: Earth:n_#1(x1) provide:v_#2(e1, x1, x2) food:n_#1(x2) we(x3) eat:v_#1(e2, x3, x2; x4) day:n_#1(x4) Logic forms are used in some natural language processing techniques, such as question answering, as well as in inference both for database systems and QA systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Natarajan dimension

  In the theory of Probably Approximately Correct Machine Learning, the Natarajan dimension characterizes the complexity of learning a set of functions, generalizing from the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension for boolean functions to multi-class functions. Originally introduced as the Generalized Dimension by Natarajan, it was subsequently renamed the Natarajan Dimension by Haussler and Long. == Definition == Let H {\displaystyle H} be a set of functions from a set X {\displaystyle X} to a set Y {\displaystyle Y} . H {\displaystyle H} shatters a set C ⊂ X {\displaystyle C\subset X} if there exist two functions f 0 , f 1 ∈ H {\displaystyle f_{0},f_{1}\in H} such that For every x ∈ C , f 0 ( x ) ≠ f 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in C,f_{0}(x)\neq f_{1}(x)} . For every B ⊂ C {\displaystyle B\subset C} , there exists a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that for all x ∈ B , h ( x ) = f 0 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in B,h(x)=f_{0}(x)} and for all x ∈ C − B , h ( x ) = f 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in C-B,h(x)=f_{1}(x)} . The Natarajan dimension of H is the maximal cardinality of a set shattered by H {\displaystyle H} . It is easy to see that if | Y | = 2 {\displaystyle |Y|=2} , the Natarajan dimension collapses to the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension. Shalev-Shwartz and Ben-David present comprehensive material on multi-class learning and the Natarajan dimension, including uniform convergence and learnability. Recently, Cohen et al showed that the Natarajan dimension is the dominant term governing agnostic multi-class PAC learnability.

  Read more →
• 

  Representer theorem

  For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span ⁡ { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin ⁡ { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span ⁡ { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr

  Read more →
• 

  Prescription monitoring program

  In the United States, prescription monitoring programs (PMPs) or prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are state-run programs which collect and distribute data about the prescription and dispensation of federally controlled substances and, depending on state requirements, other potentially abusable prescription drugs. PMPs are meant to help prevent adverse drug-related events such as opioid overdoses, drug diversion, and substance abuse by decreasing the amount and/or frequency of opioid prescribing, and by identifying those patients who are obtaining prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e., "doctor shopping") or those physicians overprescribing opioids. Most US health care workers support the idea of PMPs, which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments. The database, whose use is required by State law, typically requires prescribers and pharmacies dispensing controlled substances to register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense from their offices) to report the dispensation of such prescriptions to an electronic online database. The majority of PMPs are authorized to notify law enforcement agencies or licensing boards or physicians when a prescriber, or patients receiving prescriptions, exceed thresholds established by the state or prescription recipient exceeds thresholds established by the State. All states have implemented PDMPs, although evidence for the effectiveness of these programs is mixed. While prescription of opioids has decreased with PMP use, overdose deaths in many states have actually increased, with those states sharing data with neighboring jurisdictions or requiring reporting of more drugs experiencing highest increases in deaths. This may be because those declined opioid prescriptions turn to street drugs, whose potency and contaminants carry greater overdose risk. == History == Prescription drug monitoring programs, or PDMPs, are an example of one initiative proposed to alleviate effects of the opioid crisis. The programs are designed to restrict prescription drug abuse by limiting a patient's ability to obtain similar prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e. “doctor shopping”) and reducing diversion of controlled substances. This is meant to reduce risk of fatal overdose caused by high doses of opioids or interactions between opioids and benzodiazepenes, and to enable better decision making on the part of healthcare providers who may be unaware of a patient's prescription drug use, history or other prescriptions. PDMPs have been implemented in state legislations since 1939 in California, a time before electronic medical records, though implementation rose alongside increased awareness of overprescribing of opioids and overdose. A later New York state program was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Whalen v. Roe. But, by 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam had enacted PDMP legislation. In 2021 Missouri, the last State to not use a PMP, adopted legislation to create one. PMPs are constantly being updated to increase speed of data collection, sharing of data across States, and ease of interpretation. This is being done by integrating PDMP reports with other health information technologies such as health information exchanges (HIE), electronic health record (EHR) systems, and/ or pharmacy dispensing software systems. One program that has been implemented in nine states is called the PDMP Electronic Health Records Integration and Interoperability Expansion, also known as PEHRIIE. Another software, marketed by Bamboo Health and integrated with PMPs in 43 states, uses an algorithm to track factors thought to increase risk of diversion, abuse or overdose, and assigns patients a three digit score based on presumed indicators of risk. While some studies have suggested that PDMP-HIT integration and sharing of interstate data brings benefits such as reduced opioid-related inpatient morbidity, others have found no or negative impact on mortality compared to states without PMP data sharing. Patient and media reports suggest need for testing and evaluation of algorithmic software used to score risk, with some patients reporting denial of prescriptions without c explanation or clarity of data. == Goals == Most health care workers support PMPs which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments, as well as law-enforcement agencies. The collaboration supports the legitimate medical use of controlled substances while limiting their abuse and diversion. Pharmacies dispensing controlled substances and prescribers typically must register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense controlled substances from their offices) report the dispensation to an electronic online database. Some pharmacy software can submit these reports automatically to multiple states. == Usage == === List of programs by state === === Software systems === NarxCare is a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) run by Bamboo Health. Bamboo Health was formerly known as Appriss. It is widely used across the United States by pharmacies including Rite Aid as well as those at Walmart and Sam’s Club. The NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient, combining data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states to make the registries interoperable nationally. It also uses machine learning to generate an "Overdose Risk Score" that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data; these scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Advertised as an "analytics tool and care management platform", the NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient including how many pharmacies they have visited and the combinations of medication they are prescribed. It combines data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states, making the registries interoperable nationally. It additionally uses machine learning to generate various three-digit "risk scores" and an overall "Overdose Risk Score", collectively referred to as Narx Scores, in a process that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data as well as court records. == Controversy == Many doctors and researchers support the idea of PDMPs as a tool in combatting the opioid epidemic. Opioid prescribing, opioid diversion and supply, opioid misuse, and opioid-related morbidity and mortality are common elements in data entered into PDMPs. Prescription Monitoring Programs are purported to offer economic benefits for the states who implement them by decreasing overall health care costs, lost productivity, and investigation times. However, there are many studies that conclude the impact of PDMPs is unclear. While use of PMPs has been accompanied by decrease in opioid prescribing, few analyses consider corresponding use of street opioids, extramedical use, or diversion, which might provide a more holistic method for evaluation of PMP intent and efficacy. Evidence for PDMP impact on fatal overdoses is decidedly mixed, with multiple studies finding increased overdose rates in some states, decreases in others, or no clear impact. Interestingly, an increase in heroin overdoses after PDMP implementation has been commonly reported, presumably as denial of prescription opioids sends patients in search of street drugs. Narx Scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the generation process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Writing in Duke Law Journal, Jennifer Oliva stated that "black-box algorithms" are used to generate the scores.

  Read more →
• 

  Terminology model

  A terminology model is a refinement of a concept system. Within a terminology model the concepts (object types) of a specific problem or subject area are defined by subject-matter experts in terms of concept (object type) definitions and definitions of subordinated concepts or characteristics (properties). Besides object types, the terminology model allows defining hierarchical classifications, definitions for object type and property behavior and definition of casual relations. The terminology model is a means for subject-matter experts to express their knowledge about the subject in subject-specific terms. Since the terminology model is structured rather similar to an object-oriented database schema, is can be transformed without loss of information into an object-oriented database schema. Thus, the terminology model is a method for problem analysis on the one side and a mean of defining database schema on the other side. Several terminology models have been developed and published in the field of statistics: Terminology model for classifications Terminology model for statistical variables Reference model for statistical metadata

  Read more →
• 

  Autoencoder

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

  Read more →
• 

  Independent component analysis

  In signal processing, independent component analysis (ICA) is a computational method for separating a multivariate signal into additive subcomponents. This is done by assuming that at most one subcomponent is Gaussian and that the subcomponents are statistically independent from each other. ICA was invented by Jeanny Hérault and Christian Jutten in 1985. ICA is a special case of blind source separation. A common example application of ICA is the "cocktail party problem" of listening in on one person's speech in a noisy room. == Introduction == Independent component analysis attempts to decompose a multivariate signal into independent non-Gaussian signals. As an example, sound is usually a signal that is composed of the numerical addition, at each time t, of signals from several sources. The question then is whether it is possible to separate these contributing sources from the observed total signal. When the statistical independence assumption is correct, blind ICA separation of a mixed signal gives very good results. It is also used for signals that are not supposed to be generated by mixing for analysis purposes. A simple application of ICA is the "cocktail party problem", where the underlying speech signals are separated from a sample data consisting of people talking simultaneously in a room. Usually the problem is simplified by assuming no time delays or echoes. Note that a filtered and delayed signal is a copy of a dependent component, and thus the statistical independence assumption is not violated. Mixing weights for constructing the M {\textstyle M} observed signals from the N {\textstyle N} components can be placed in an M × N {\textstyle M\times N} matrix. An important thing to consider is that if N {\textstyle N} sources are present, at least N {\textstyle N} observations (e.g. microphones if the observed signal is audio) are needed to recover the original signals. When there are an equal number of observations and source signals, the mixing matrix is square ( M = N {\textstyle M=N} ). Other cases of underdetermined ( M < N {\textstyle M N {\textstyle M>N} ) have been investigated. The success of ICA separation of mixed signals relies on two assumptions and three effects of mixing source signals. Two assumptions: The source signals are independent of each other. The values in each source signal have non-Gaussian distributions. Three effects of mixing source signals: Independence: As per assumption 1, the source signals are independent; however, their signal mixtures are not. This is because the signal mixtures share the same source signals. Normality: According to the Central Limit Theorem, the distribution of a sum of independent random variables with finite variance tends towards a Gaussian distribution.Loosely speaking, a sum of two independent random variables usually has a distribution that is closer to Gaussian than any of the two original variables. Here we consider the value of each signal as the random variable. Complexity: The temporal complexity of any signal mixture is greater than that of its simplest constituent source signal. Those principles contribute to the basic establishment of ICA. If the signals extracted from a set of mixtures are independent and have non-Gaussian distributions or have low complexity, then they must be source signals. Another common example is image steganography, where ICA is used to embed one image within another. For instance, two grayscale images can be linearly combined to create mixed images in which the hidden content is visually imperceptible. ICA can then be used to recover the original source images from the mixtures. This technique underlies digital watermarking, which allows the embedding of ownership information into images, as well as more covert applications such as undetected information transmission. The method has even been linked to real-world cyberespionage cases. In such applications, ICA serves to unmix the data based on statistical independence, making it possible to extract hidden components that are not apparent in the observed data. Steganographic techniques, including those potentially involving ICA-based analysis, have been used in real-world cyberespionage cases. In 2010, the FBI uncovered a Russian spy network known as the "Illegals Program" (Operation Ghost Stories), where agents used custom-built steganography tools to conceal encrypted text messages within image files shared online. In another case, a former General Electric engineer, Xiaoqing Zheng, was convicted in 2022 for economic espionage. Zheng used steganography to exfiltrate sensitive turbine technology by embedding proprietary data within image files for transfer to entities in China. == Defining component independence == ICA finds the independent components (also called factors, latent variables or sources) by maximizing the statistical independence of the estimated components. We may choose one of many ways to define a proxy for independence, and this choice governs the form of the ICA algorithm. The two broadest definitions of independence for ICA are Minimization of mutual information Maximization of non-Gaussianity The Minimization-of-Mutual information (MMI) family of ICA algorithms uses measures like Kullback-Leibler Divergence and maximum entropy. The non-Gaussianity family of ICA algorithms, motivated by the central limit theorem, uses kurtosis and negentropy. Typical algorithms for ICA use centering (subtract the mean to create a zero mean signal), whitening (usually with the eigenvalue decomposition), and dimensionality reduction as preprocessing steps in order to simplify and reduce the complexity of the problem for the actual iterative algorithm. == Mathematical definitions == Linear independent component analysis can be divided into noiseless and noisy cases, where noiseless ICA is a special case of noisy ICA. Nonlinear ICA should be considered as a separate case. === General Derivation === In the classical ICA model, it is assumed that the observed data x i ∈ R m {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} is generated from source signals s i ∈ R m {\displaystyle \mathbf {s} _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} via a linear transformation x i = A s i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}=A\mathbf {s} _{i}} , where A {\displaystyle A} is an unknown, invertible mixing matrix. To recover the source signals, the data is first centered (zero mean), and then whitened so that the transformed data has unit covariance. This whitening reduces the problem from estimating a general matrix A {\displaystyle A} to estimating an orthogonal matrix V {\displaystyle V} , significantly simplifying the search for independent components. If the covariance matrix of the centered data is Σ x = A A ⊤ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{x}=AA^{\top }} , then using the eigen-decomposition Σ x = Q D Q ⊤ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{x}=QDQ^{\top }} , the whitening transformation can be taken as D − 1 / 2 Q ⊤ {\displaystyle D^{-1/2}Q^{\top }} . This step ensures that the recovered sources are uncorrelated and of unit variance, leaving only the task of rotating the whitened data to maximize statistical independence. This general derivation underlies many ICA algorithms and is foundational in understanding the ICA model. ==== Reduced Mixing Problem ==== Independent component analysis (ICA) addresses the problem of recovering a set of unobserved source signals s i = ( s i 1 , s i 2 , … , s i m ) T {\displaystyle s_{i}=(s_{i1},s_{i2},\dots ,s_{im})^{T}} from observed mixed signals x i = ( x i 1 , x i 2 , … , x i m ) T {\displaystyle x_{i}=(x_{i1},x_{i2},\dots ,x_{im})^{T}} , based on the linear mixing model: x i = A s i , {\displaystyle x_{i}=A\,s_{i},} where the A {\displaystyle A} is an m × m {\displaystyle m\times m} invertible matrix called the mixing matrix, s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} represents the m‑dimensional vector containing the values of the sources at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} , and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the corresponding vector of observed values at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} . The goal is to estimate both A {\displaystyle A} and the source signals { s i } {\displaystyle \{s_{i}\}} solely from the observed data { x i } {\displaystyle \{x_{i}\}} . After centering, the Gram matrix is computed as: ( X ∗ ) T X ∗ = Q D Q T , {\displaystyle (X^{})^{T}X^{}=Q\,D\,Q^{T},} where D is a diagonal matrix with positive entries (assuming X ∗ {\displaystyle X^{}} has maximum rank), and Q is an orthogonal matrix. Writing the SVD of the mixing matrix A = U Σ V T {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{T}} and comparing with A A T = U Σ 2 U T {\displaystyle AA^{T}=U\Sigma ^{2}U^{T}} the mixing A has the form A = Q D 1 / 2 V T . {\displaystyle A=Q\,D^{1/2}\,V^{T}.} So, the normalized source values satisfy s i ∗ = V y i ∗ {\displaystyle s_{i}^{}=V\,y_{i}^{}} , where y i ∗ = D − 1 2 Q T x i ∗ . {\displaystyle y_{i}^{}=D^{-{\tfrac {1}{2}}}Q^{T}x_{i}^{}.} Thus, ICA reduces

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic variance reduction

  (Stochastic) variance reduction is an algorithmic approach to minimizing functions that can be decomposed into finite sums. By exploiting the finite sum structure, variance reduction techniques are able to achieve convergence rates that are impossible to achieve with methods that treat the objective as an infinite sum, as in the classical Stochastic approximation setting. Variance reduction approaches are widely used for training machine learning models such as logistic regression and support vector machines as these problems have finite-sum structure and uniform conditioning that make them ideal candidates for variance reduction. == Finite sum objectives == A function f {\displaystyle f} is considered to have finite sum structure if it can be decomposed into a summation or average: f ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ( x ) , {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}(x),} where the function value and derivative of each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} can be queried independently. Although variance reduction methods can be applied for any positive n {\displaystyle n} and any f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} structure, their favorable theoretical and practical properties arise when n {\displaystyle n} is large compared to the condition number of each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} , and when the f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} have similar (but not necessarily identical) Lipschitz smoothness and strong convexity constants. The finite sum structure should be contrasted with the stochastic approximation setting which deals with functions of the form f ( θ ) = E ξ ⁡ [ F ( θ , ξ ) ] {\textstyle f(\theta )=\operatorname {E} _{\xi }[F(\theta ,\xi )]} which is the expected value of a function depending on a random variable ξ {\textstyle \xi } . Any finite sum problem can be optimized using a stochastic approximation algorithm by using F ( ⋅ , ξ ) = f ξ {\displaystyle F(\cdot ,\xi )=f_{\xi }} . == Rapid Convergence == Stochastic variance reduced methods without acceleration are able to find a minima of f {\displaystyle f} within accuracy ϵ > {\displaystyle \epsilon >} , i.e. f ( x ) − f ( x ∗ ) ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle f(x)-f(x_{})\leq \epsilon } in a number of steps of the order: O ( ( L μ + n ) log ⁡ ( 1 ϵ ) ) . {\displaystyle O\left(\left({\frac {L}{\mu }}+n\right)\log \left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)\right).} The number of steps depends only logarithmically on the level of accuracy required, in contrast to the stochastic approximation framework, where the number of steps O ( L / ( μ ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O{\bigl (}L/(\mu \epsilon ){\bigr )}} required grows proportionally to the accuracy required. Stochastic variance reduction methods converge almost as fast as the gradient descent method's O ( ( L / μ ) log ⁡ ( 1 / ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O{\bigl (}(L/\mu )\log(1/\epsilon ){\bigr )}} rate, despite using only a stochastic gradient, at a 1 / n {\displaystyle 1/n} lower cost than gradient descent. Accelerated methods in the stochastic variance reduction framework achieve even faster convergence rates, requiring only O ( ( n L μ + n ) log ⁡ ( 1 ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O\left(\left({\sqrt {\frac {nL}{\mu }}}+n\right)\log \left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)\right)} steps to reach ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } accuracy, potentially n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n}}} faster than non-accelerated methods. Lower complexity bounds. for the finite sum class establish that this rate is the fastest possible for smooth strongly convex problems. == Approaches == Variance reduction approaches fall within four main categories: table averaging methods, full-gradient snapshot methods, recursive estimator methods (e.g., SARAH), and dual methods. Each category contains methods designed for dealing with convex, non-smooth, and non-convex problems, each differing in hyper-parameter settings and other algorithmic details. === SAGA === In the SAGA method, the prototypical table averaging approach, a table of size n {\displaystyle n} is maintained that contains the last gradient witnessed for each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} term, which we denote g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} . At each step, an index i {\displaystyle i} is sampled, and a new gradient ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} is computed. The iterate x k {\displaystyle x_{k}} is updated with: x k + 1 = x k − γ [ ∇ f i ( x k ) − g i + 1 n ∑ i = 1 n g i ] , {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma \left[\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})-g_{i}+{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}g_{i}\right],} and afterwards table entry i {\displaystyle i} is updated with g i = ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle g_{i}=\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} . SAGA is among the most popular of the variance reduction methods due to its simplicity, easily adaptable theory, and excellent performance. It is the successor of the SAG method, improving on its flexibility and performance. === SVRG === The stochastic variance reduced gradient method (SVRG), the prototypical snapshot method, uses a similar update except instead of using the average of a table it instead uses a full-gradient that is reevaluated at a snapshot point x ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}} at regular intervals of m ≥ n {\displaystyle m\geq n} iterations. The update becomes: x k + 1 = x k − γ [ ∇ f i ( x k ) − ∇ f i ( x ~ ) + ∇ f ( x ~ ) ] , {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma [\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})-\nabla f_{i}({\tilde {x}})+\nabla f({\tilde {x}})],} This approach requires two stochastic gradient evaluations per step, one to compute ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} and one to compute ∇ f i ( x ~ ) , {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}({\tilde {x}}),} where-as table averaging approaches need only one. Despite the high computational cost, SVRG is popular as its simple convergence theory is highly adaptable to new optimization settings. It also has lower storage requirements than tabular averaging approaches, which make it applicable in many settings where tabular methods can not be used. === SARAH === The SARAH (stochastic recursive gradient) method maintains a recursive estimator of the gradient rather than storing a table of past gradients (as in SAGA) or computing periodic full-gradient snapshots (as in SVRG). At the start of an inner loop, a full gradient is computed at a reference point x ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}} : v 0 = ∇ f ( x ~ ) {\displaystyle v_{0}=\nabla f({\tilde {x}})} . For inner iterations, with a sampled index i k {\displaystyle i_{k}} , the gradient estimator and iterate are updated by: v k = ∇ f i k ( x k ) − ∇ f i k ( x k − 1 ) + v k − 1 , x k + 1 = x k − γ v k . {\displaystyle v_{k}=\nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k})-\nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k-1})+v_{k-1},\qquad x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma v_{k}.} This recursion requires two component-gradient evaluations per step ∇ f i k ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k})} and ∇ f i k ( x k − 1 ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k-1})} but does not need to store per-sample gradients, resulting in lower memory cost than table-averaging methods. SARAH admits linear convergence for strongly convex functions and has been extended to more general nonconvex and composite problems. === SDCA === Exploiting the dual representation of the objective leads to another variance reduction approach that is particularly suited to finite-sums where each term has a structure that makes computing the convex conjugate f i ∗ , {\displaystyle f_{i}^{},} or its proximal operator tractable. The standard SDCA method considers finite sums that have additional structure compared to generic finite sum setting: f ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ( x T v i ) + λ 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}(x^{T}v_{i})+{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\|x\|^{2},} where each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} is 1 dimensional and each v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} is a data point associated with f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} . SDCA solves the dual problem: max α ∈ R n − 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ∗ ( − α i ) − λ 2 ‖ 1 λ n ∑ i = 1 n α i v i ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle \max _{\alpha \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}}-{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}^{}(-\alpha _{i})-{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\left\|{\frac {1}{\lambda n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}v_{i}\right\|^{2},} by a stochastic coordinate ascent procedure, where at each step the objective is optimized with respect to a randomly chosen coordinate α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , leaving all other coordinates the same. An approximate primal solution x {\displaystyle x} can be recovered from the α {\displaystyle \alpha } values: x = 1 λ n ∑ i = 1 n α i v i {\displaystyle x={\frac {1}{\lambda n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}v_{i}} . This method obtains similar theoretical rates of convergence to other stochastic variance reduced methods, while avoiding the need to specify a step-size parameter. It is fast in practice when λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is large, but significantly slower than the other approaches when λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is small. == Accelerated approaches == Accelerated variance reduction methods are built upon the standard methods above. The earliest approaches make use of proximal operators t

  Read more →
• 

  Information extraction

  Information extraction (IE) is the task of automatically extracting structured information from unstructured and/or semi-structured machine-readable documents and other electronically represented sources. Typically, this involves processing human language texts by means of natural language processing (NLP). Recent activities in multimedia document processing like automatic annotation and content extraction out of images/audio/video/documents could be seen as information extraction. Recent advances in NLP techniques have allowed for significantly improved performance compared to previous years. An example is the extraction from newswire reports of corporate mergers, such as denoted by the formal relation: MergerBetween ⁡ ( c o m p a n y 1 , c o m p a n y 2 , d a t e ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {MergerBetween} (\mathrm {company} _{1},\mathrm {company} _{2},\mathrm {date} )} , from an online news sentence such as: "Yesterday, New York based Foo Inc. announced their acquisition of Bar Corp." A broad goal of IE is to allow computation to be done on the previously unstructured data. A more specific goal is to allow automated reasoning about the logical form of the input data. Structured data is semantically well-defined data from a chosen target domain, interpreted with respect to category and context. Information extraction is the part of a greater puzzle which deals with the problem of devising automatic methods for text management, beyond its transmission, storage and display. The discipline of information retrieval (IR) has developed automatic methods, typically of a statistical flavor, for indexing large document collections and classifying documents. Another complementary approach is that of natural language processing (NLP) which has solved the problem of modelling human language processing with considerable success when taking into account the magnitude of the task. In terms of both difficulty and emphasis, IE deals with tasks in between both IR and NLP. In terms of input, IE assumes the existence of a set of documents in which each document follows a template, i.e. describes one or more entities or events in a manner that is similar to those in other documents but differing in the details. An example, consider a group of newswire articles on Latin American terrorism with each article presumed to be based upon one or more terroristic acts. We also define for any given IE task a template, which is a(or a set of) case frame(s) to hold the information contained in a single document. For the terrorism example, a template would have slots corresponding to the perpetrator, victim, and weapon of the terroristic act, and the date on which the event happened. An IE system for this problem is required to "understand" an attack article only enough to find data corresponding to the slots in this template. == History == Information extraction dates back to the late 1970s in the early days of NLP. An early commercial system from the mid-1980s was JASPER built for Reuters by the Carnegie Group Inc with the aim of providing real-time financial news to financial traders. Beginning in 1987, IE was spurred by a series of Message Understanding Conferences. MUC is a competition-based conference that focused on the following domains: MUC-1 (1987), MUC-3 (1989): Naval operations messages. MUC-3 (1991), MUC-4 (1992): Terrorism in Latin American countries. MUC-5 (1993): Joint ventures and microelectronics domain. MUC-6 (1995): News articles on management changes. MUC-7 (1998): Satellite launch reports. Considerable support came from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), who wished to automate mundane tasks performed by government analysts, such as scanning newspapers for possible links to terrorism. == Present significance == The present significance of IE pertains to the growing amount of information available in unstructured form. Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, refers to the existing Internet as the web of documents and advocates that more of the content be made available as a web of data. Until this transpires, the web largely consists of unstructured documents lacking semantic metadata. Knowledge contained within these documents can be made more accessible for machine processing by means of transformation into relational form, or by marking-up with XML tags. An intelligent agent monitoring a news data feed requires IE to transform unstructured data into something that can be reasoned with. A typical application of IE is to scan a set of documents written in a natural language and populate a database with the information extracted. == Tasks and subtasks == Applying information extraction to text is linked to the problem of text simplification in order to create a structured view of the information present in free text. The overall goal being to create a more easily machine-readable text to process the sentences. Typical IE tasks and subtasks include: Template filling: Extracting a fixed set of fields from a document, e.g. extract perpetrators, victims, time, etc. from a newspaper article about a terrorist attack. Event extraction: Given an input document, output zero or more event templates. For instance, a newspaper article might describe multiple terrorist attacks. Knowledge Base Population: Fill a database of facts given a set of documents. Typically the database is in the form of triplets, (entity 1, relation, entity 2), e.g. (Barack Obama, Spouse, Michelle Obama) Named entity recognition: recognition of known entity names (for people and organizations), place names, temporal expressions, and certain types of numerical expressions, by employing existing knowledge of the domain or information extracted from other sentences. Typically the recognition task involves assigning a unique identifier to the extracted entity. A simpler task is named entity detection, which aims at detecting entities without having any existing knowledge about the entity instances. For example, in processing the sentence "M. Smith likes fishing", named entity detection would denote detecting that the phrase "M. Smith" does refer to a person, but without necessarily having (or using) any knowledge about a certain M. Smith who is (or, "might be") the specific person whom that sentence is talking about. Coreference resolution: detection of coreference and anaphoric links between text entities. In IE tasks, this is typically restricted to finding links between previously extracted named entities. For example, "International Business Machines" and "IBM" refer to the same real-world entity. If we take the two sentences "M. Smith likes fishing. But he doesn't like biking", it would be beneficial to detect that "he" is referring to the previously detected person "M. Smith". Relationship extraction: identification of relations between entities, such as: PERSON works for ORGANIZATION (extracted from the sentence "Bill works for IBM.") PERSON located in LOCATION (extracted from the sentence "Bill is in France.") Semi-structured information extraction which may refer to any IE that tries to restore some kind of information structure that has been lost through publication, such as: Table extraction: finding and extracting tables from documents. Table information extraction : extracting information in structured manner from the tables. This task is more complex than table extraction, as table extraction is only the first step, while understanding the roles of the cells, rows, columns, linking the information inside the table and understanding the information presented in the table are additional tasks necessary for table information extraction. Comments extraction : extracting comments from the actual content of articles in order to restore the link between authors of each of the sentences Language and vocabulary analysis Terminology extraction: finding the relevant terms for a given corpus Audio extraction Template-based music extraction: finding relevant characteristic in an audio signal taken from a given repertoire; for instance time indexes of occurrences of percussive sounds can be extracted in order to represent the essential rhythmic component of a music piece. Note that this list is not exhaustive and that the exact meaning of IE activities is not commonly accepted and that many approaches combine multiple sub-tasks of IE in order to achieve a wider goal. Machine learning, statistical analysis and/or natural language processing are often used in IE. IE on non-text documents is becoming an increasingly interesting topic in research, and information extracted from multimedia documents can now be expressed in a high level structure as it is done on text. This naturally leads to the fusion of extracted information from multiple kinds of documents and sources. == World Wide Web applications == IE has been the focus of the MUC conferences. The proliferation of the Web, however, intensified the need for developing IE systems that help people

  Read more →
• 

  List of text mining software

  Text mining computer programs are available from many commercial and open source companies and sources. == Commercial == Angoss – Angoss Text Analytics provides entity and theme extraction, topic categorization, sentiment analysis and document summarization capabilities via the embedded AUTINDEX – is a commercial text mining software package based on sophisticated linguistics by IAI (Institute for Applied Information Sciences), Saarbrücken. DigitalMR – social media listening & text+image analytics tool for market research. FICO Score – leading provider of analytics. General Sentiment – Social Intelligence platform that uses natural language processing to discover affinities between the fans of brands with the fans of traditional television shows in social media. Stand alone text analytics to capture social knowledge base on billions of topics stored to 2004. IBM LanguageWare – the IBM suite for text analytics (tools and Runtime). IBM SPSS – provider of Modeler Premium (previously called IBM SPSS Modeler and IBM SPSS Text Analytics), which contains advanced NLP-based text analysis capabilities (multi-lingual sentiment, event and fact extraction), that can be used in conjunction with Predictive Modeling. Text Analytics for Surveys provides the ability to categorize survey responses using NLP-based capabilities for further analysis or reporting. Inxight – provider of text analytics, search, and unstructured visualization technologies. (Inxight was bought by Business Objects that was bought by SAP AG in 2008). Language Computer Corporation – text extraction and analysis tools, available in multiple languages. Lexalytics – provider of a text analytics engine used in Social Media Monitoring, Voice of Customer, Survey Analysis, and other applications. Salience Engine. The software provides the unique capability of merging the output of unstructured, text-based analysis with structured data to provide additional predictive variables for improved predictive models and association analysis. Linguamatics – provider of natural language processing (NLP) based enterprise text mining and text analytics software, I2E, for high-value knowledge discovery and decision support. Mathematica – provides built in tools for text alignment, pattern matching, clustering and semantic analysis. See Wolfram Language, the programming language of Mathematica. MATLAB offers Text Analytics Toolbox for importing text data, converting it to numeric form for use in machine and deep learning, sentiment analysis and classification tasks. Medallia – offers one system of record for survey, social, text, written and online feedback. NetMiner – software for network analysis and text mining. Supports social media and bibliographic data collection, NLP for english and chinese, sentiment analysis, work co-occurrence network(text network analysis) and visualization. NetOwl – suite of multilingual text and entity analytics products, including entity extraction, link and event extraction, sentiment analysis, geotagging, name translation, name matching, and identity resolution, among others. PolyAnalyst - text analytics environment. PoolParty Semantic Suite - graph-based text mining platform. RapidMiner with its Text Processing Extension – data and text mining software. SAS – SAS Text Miner and Teragram; commercial text analytics, natural language processing, and taxonomy software used for Information Management. Sketch Engine – a corpus manager and analysis software which providing creating text corpora from uploaded texts or the Web including part-of-speech tagging and lemmatization or detecting a particular website. Sysomos – provider social media analytics software platform, including text analytics and sentiment analysis on online consumer conversations. WordStat – Content analysis and text mining add-on module of QDA Miner for analyzing large amounts of text data. == Open source == Carrot2 – text and search results clustering framework. GATE – general Architecture for Text Engineering, an open-source toolbox for natural language processing and language engineering. Gensim – large-scale topic modelling and extraction of semantic information from unstructured text (Python). KH Coder – for Quantitative Content Analysis or Text Mining The KNIME Text Processing extension. Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK) – a suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for the Python programming language. OpenNLP – natural language processing. Orange with its text mining add-on. The PLOS Text Mining Collection. The programming language R provides a framework for text mining applications in the package tm. The Natural Language Processing task view contains tm and other text mining library packages. spaCy – open-source Natural Language Processing library for Python Stanbol – an open source text mining engine targeted at semantic content management. Voyant Tools – a web-based text analysis environment, created as a scholarly project.

  Read more →
• 

  BookCorpus

  BookCorpus (also sometimes referred to as the Toronto Book Corpus) is a dataset consisting of the text of around 7,000 self-published books scraped from the indie ebook distribution website Smashwords. It was the main corpus used to train the initial GPT model by OpenAI, and has been used as training data for other early large language models including Google's BERT. The dataset consists of around 985 million words, and the books that comprise it span a range of genres, including romance, science fiction, and fantasy. The corpus was introduced in a 2015 paper by researchers from the University of Toronto and MIT titled "Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Books". The authors described it as consisting of "free books written by yet unpublished authors," yet this is factually incorrect. These books were published by self-published ("indie") authors who priced them at free; the books were downloaded without the consent or permission of Smashwords or Smashwords authors and in violation of the Smashwords Terms of Service. The dataset was initially hosted on a University of Toronto webpage. An official version of the original dataset is no longer publicly available, though at least one substitute, BookCorpusOpen, has been created. Though not documented in the original 2015 paper, the site from which the corpus's books were scraped is now known to be Smashwords.

  Read more →