AI Headshot Magisk Module

AI Headshot Magisk Module — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Dynamic epistemic logic

  Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov

  Read more →
• 

  Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

  The Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition is an annual conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. == Affiliations == The conference was first held in 1983 in Washington, DC, organized by Takeo Kanade and Dana H. Ballard. From 1985 to 2010 it was sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society. In 2011 it was also co-sponsored by University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Since 2012 it has been co-sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and the Computer Vision Foundation, which provides open access to the conference papers. == Scope == The conference considers a wide range of topics related to computer vision and pattern recognition—basically any topic that is extracting structures or answers from images or video or applying mathematical methods to data to extract or recognize patterns. Common topics include object recognition, image segmentation, motion estimation, 3D reconstruction, and deep learning. The conference generally has less than 30% acceptance rates for all papers and less than 5% for oral presentations. It is managed by a rotating group of volunteers who are chosen in a public election at the Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence-Technical Community (PAMI-TC) meeting four years before the meeting. The conference uses a multi-tier double-blind peer review process. The program chairs, who cannot submit papers, select area chairs who manage the reviewers for their subset of submissions. == Location and time == The conference is usually held in June in North America. == Awards == === Best Paper Award === These awards are picked by committees delegated by the program chairs of the conference. === Longuet-Higgins Prize === The Longuet-Higgins Prize recognizes papers from ten years ago that have made a significant impact on computer vision research. === PAMI Young Researcher Award === The Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Young Researcher Award is an award given by the Technical Committee on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence of the IEEE Computer Society to a researcher within 7 years of completing their Ph.D. for outstanding early career research contributions. Candidates are nominated by the computer vision community, with winners selected by a committee of senior researchers in the field. This award was originally instituted in 2012 by the journal Image and Vision Computing, also presented at the conference, and the journal continues to sponsor the award. === PAMI Thomas S. Huang Memorial Prize === The Thomas Huang Memorial Prize was established at the 2020 conference and is awarded annually starting from 2021 to honor researchers who are recognized as examples in research, teaching/mentoring, and service to the computer vision community.

  Read more →
• 

  One-class classification

  In machine learning, one-class classification (OCC), also known as unary classification or class-modelling, is an approach to the training of binary classifiers in which only examples of one of the two classes are used. Examples include the monitoring of helicopter gearboxes, motor failure prediction, or assessing the operational status of a nuclear plant as 'normal': In such scenarios, there are few, if any, examples of the catastrophic system states – rare outliers – that comprise the second class. Alternatively, the class that is being focused on may cover a small, coherent subset of the data and the training may rely on an information bottleneck approach. In practice, counter-examples from the second class may be used in later rounds of training to further refine the algorithm. == Overview == The term one-class classification (OCC) was coined by Moya & Hush (1996) and many applications can be found in scientific literature, for example outlier detection, anomaly detection, novelty detection. A feature of OCC is that it uses only sample points from the assigned class, so that a representative sampling is not strictly required for non-target classes. == Introduction == SVM based one-class classification (OCC) relies on identifying the smallest hypersphere (with radius r, and center c) consisting of all the data points. This method is called Support Vector Data Description (SVDD). Formally, the problem can be defined in the following constrained optimization form, min r , c r 2 subject to, | | Φ ( x i ) − c | | 2 ≤ r 2 ∀ i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n {\displaystyle \min _{r,c}r^{2}{\text{ subject to, }}||\Phi (x_{i})-c||^{2}\leq r^{2}\;\;\forall i=1,2,...,n} However, the above formulation is highly restrictive, and is sensitive to the presence of outliers. Therefore, a flexible formulation, that allow for the presence of outliers is formulated as shown below, min r , c , ζ r 2 + 1 ν n ∑ i = 1 n ζ i {\displaystyle \min _{r,c,\zeta }r^{2}+{\frac {1}{\nu n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\zeta _{i}} subject to, | | Φ ( x i ) − c | | 2 ≤ r 2 + ζ i ∀ i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n {\displaystyle {\text{subject to, }}||\Phi (x_{i})-c||^{2}\leq r^{2}+\zeta _{i}\;\;\forall i=1,2,...,n} From the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions for optimality, we get c = ∑ i = 1 n α i Φ ( x i ) , {\displaystyle c=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\Phi (x_{i}),} where the α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} 's are the solution to the following optimization problem: max α ∑ i = 1 n α i κ ( x i , x i ) − ∑ i , j = 1 n α i α j κ ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle \max _{\alpha }\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\kappa (x_{i},x_{i})-\sum _{i,j=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\alpha _{j}\kappa (x_{i},x_{j})} subject to, ∑ i = 1 n α i = 1 and 0 ≤ α i ≤ 1 ν n for all i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n . {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}=1{\text{ and }}0\leq \alpha _{i}\leq {\frac {1}{\nu n}}{\text{for all }}i=1,2,...,n.} The introduction of kernel function provide additional flexibility to the One-class SVM (OSVM) algorithm. === PU (Positive Unlabeled) learning === A similar problem is PU learning, in which a binary classifier is constructed by semi-supervised learning from only positive and unlabeled sample points. In PU learning, two sets of examples are assumed to be available for training: the positive set P {\displaystyle P} and a mixed set U {\displaystyle U} , which is assumed to contain both positive and negative samples, but without these being labeled as such. This contrasts with other forms of semisupervised learning, where it is assumed that a labeled set containing examples of both classes is available in addition to unlabeled samples. A variety of techniques exist to adapt supervised classifiers to the PU learning setting, including variants of the EM algorithm. PU learning has been successfully applied to text, time series, bioinformatics tasks, and remote sensing data. == Approaches == Several approaches have been proposed to solve one-class classification (OCC). The approaches can be distinguished into three main categories, density estimation, boundary methods, and reconstruction methods. === Density estimation methods === Density estimation methods rely on estimating the density of the data points, and set the threshold. These methods rely on assuming distributions, such as Gaussian, or a Poisson distribution. Following which discordancy tests can be used to test the new objects. These methods are robust to scale variance. Gaussian model is one of the simplest methods to create one-class classifiers. Due to Central Limit Theorem (CLT), these methods work best when large number of samples are present, and they are perturbed by small independent error values. The probability distribution for a d-dimensional object is given by: p N ( z ; μ ; Σ ) = 1 ( 2 π ) d 2 | Σ | 1 2 exp ⁡ { − 1 2 ( z − μ ) T Σ − 1 ( z − μ ) } {\displaystyle p_{\mathcal {N}}(z;\mu ;\Sigma )={\frac {1}{(2\pi )^{\frac {d}{2}}|\Sigma |^{\frac {1}{2}}}}\exp \left\{-{\frac {1}{2}}(z-\mu )^{T}\Sigma ^{-1}(z-\mu )\right\}} Where, μ {\displaystyle \mu } is the mean and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is the covariance matrix. Computing the inverse of covariance matrix ( Σ − 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{-1}} ) is the costliest operation, and in the cases where the data is not scaled properly, or data has singular directions pseudo-inverse Σ + {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{+}} is used to approximate the inverse, and is calculated as Σ T ( Σ Σ T ) − 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}(\Sigma \Sigma ^{T})^{-1}} . === Boundary methods === Boundary methods focus on setting boundaries around a few set of points, called target points. These methods attempt to optimize the volume. Boundary methods rely on distances, and hence are not robust to scale variance. K-centers method, NN-d, and SVDD are some of the key examples. K-centers In K-center algorithm, k {\displaystyle k} small balls with equal radius are placed to minimize the maximum distance of all minimum distances between training objects and the centers. Formally, the following error is minimized, ε k − c e n t e r = max i ( min k | | x i − μ k | | 2 ) {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k-center}=\max _{i}(\min _{k}||x_{i}-\mu _{k}||^{2})} The algorithm uses forward search method with random initialization, where the radius is determined by the maximum distance of the object, any given ball should capture. After the centers are determined, for any given test object z {\displaystyle z} the distance can be calculated as, d k − c e n t r ( z ) = min k | | z − μ k | | 2 {\displaystyle d_{k-centr}(z)=\min _{k}||z-\mu _{k}||^{2}} === Reconstruction methods === Reconstruction methods use prior knowledge and generating process to build a generating model that best fits the data. New objects can be described in terms of a state of the generating model. Some examples of reconstruction methods for OCC are, k-means clustering, learning vector quantization, self-organizing maps, etc. == Applications == === Document classification === The basic Support Vector Machine (SVM) paradigm is trained using both positive and negative examples, however studies have shown there are many valid reasons for using only positive examples. When the SVM algorithm is modified to only use positive examples, the process is considered one-class classification. One situation where this type of classification might prove useful to the SVM paradigm is in trying to identify a web browser's sites of interest based only off of the user's browsing history. === Biomedical studies === One-class classification can be particularly useful in biomedical studies where often data from other classes can be difficult or impossible to obtain. In studying biomedical data it can be difficult and/or expensive to obtain the set of labeled data from the second class that would be necessary to perform a two-class classification. A study from The Scientific World Journal found that the typicality approach is the most useful in analysing biomedical data because it can be applied to any type of dataset (continuous, discrete, or nominal). The typicality approach is based on the clustering of data by examining data and placing it into new or existing clusters. To apply typicality to one-class classification for biomedical studies, each new observation, y 0 {\displaystyle y_{0}} , is compared to the target class, C {\displaystyle C} , and identified as an outlier or a member of the target class. === Unsupervised Concept Drift Detection === One-class classification has similarities with unsupervised concept drift detection, where both aim to identify whether the unseen data share similar characteristics to the initial data. A concept is referred to as the fixed probability distribution which data is drawn from. In unsupervised concept drift detection, the goal is to detect if the data distribution changes without utilizing class labels. In one-class classification, the flow of data is not important. Unseen data is classified as typical or outlier depending on its characteristics, whether it is from the initi

  Read more →
• 

  Mean squared prediction error

  In statistics the mean squared prediction error (MSPE), also known as mean squared error of the predictions, of a smoothing, curve fitting, or regression procedure is the expected value of the squared prediction errors (PE), the square difference between the fitted values implied by the predictive function g ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}}} and the values of the (unobservable) true value g. It is an inverse measure of the explanatory power of g ^ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}},} and can be used in the process of cross-validation of an estimated model. Knowledge of g would be required in order to calculate the MSPE exactly; in practice, MSPE is estimated. == Formulation == If the smoothing or fitting procedure has projection matrix (i.e., hat matrix) L, which maps the observed values vector y {\displaystyle y} to predicted values vector y ^ = L y , {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=Ly,} then PE and MSPE are formulated as: P E i = g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {PE_{i}} =g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i}),} MSPE = E ⁡ [ PE i 2 ] = ∑ i = 1 n PE i 2 ⁡ / n . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {E} \left[\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}\right]=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}/n.} The MSPE can be decomposed into two terms: the squared bias (mean error) of the fitted values and the variance of the fitted values: MSPE = ME 2 + VAR , {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {ME} ^{2}+\operatorname {VAR} ,} ME = E ⁡ [ g ^ ( x i ) − g ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {ME} =\operatorname {E} \left[{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-g(x_{i})\right]} VAR = E ⁡ [ ( g ^ ( x i ) − E ⁡ [ g ( x i ) ] ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {VAR} =\operatorname {E} \left[\left({\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-\operatorname {E} \left[{g}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}\right].} The quantity SSPE=nMSPE is called sum squared prediction error. The root mean squared prediction error is the square root of MSPE: RMSPE=√MSPE. == Computation of MSPE over out-of-sample data == The mean squared prediction error can be computed exactly in two contexts. First, with a data sample of length n, the data analyst may run the regression over only q of the data points (with q < n), holding back the other n – q data points with the specific purpose of using them to compute the estimated model’s MSPE out of sample (i.e., not using data that were used in the model estimation process). Since the regression process is tailored to the q in-sample points, normally the in-sample MSPE will be smaller than the out-of-sample one computed over the n – q held-back points. If the increase in the MSPE out of sample compared to in sample is relatively slight, that results in the model being viewed favorably. And if two models are to be compared, the one with the lower MSPE over the n – q out-of-sample data points is viewed more favorably, regardless of the models’ relative in-sample performances. The out-of-sample MSPE in this context is exact for the out-of-sample data points that it was computed over, but is merely an estimate of the model’s MSPE for the mostly unobserved population from which the data were drawn. Second, as time goes on more data may become available to the data analyst, and then the MSPE can be computed over these new data. == Estimation of MSPE over the population == When the model has been estimated over all available data with none held back, the MSPE of the model over the entire population of mostly unobserved data can be estimated as follows. For the model y i = g ( x i ) + σ ε i {\displaystyle y_{i}=g(x_{i})+\sigma \varepsilon _{i}} where ε i ∼ N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} , one may write n ⋅ MSPE ⁡ ( L ) = g T ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) g + σ 2 tr ⁡ [ L T L ] . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=g^{\text{T}}(I-L)^{\text{T}}(I-L)g+\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[L^{\text{T}}L\right].} Using in-sample data values, the first term on the right side is equivalent to ∑ i = 1 n ( E ⁡ [ g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) ] ) 2 = E ⁡ [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 tr ⁡ [ ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) ] . {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\operatorname {E} \left[g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[\left(I-L\right)^{T}\left(I-L\right)\right].} Thus, n ⋅ MSPE ⁡ ( L ) = E ⁡ [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 ( n − tr ⁡ [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} If σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} is known or well-estimated by σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} , it becomes possible to estimate MSPE by n ⋅ M S P E ^ ⁡ ( L ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 − σ ^ 2 ( n − tr ⁡ [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {\widehat {MSPE}} (L)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}-{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} Colin Mallows advocated this method in the construction of his model selection statistic Cp, which is a normalized version of the estimated MSPE: C p = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 σ ^ 2 − n + 2 p . {\displaystyle C_{p}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}}{{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}}}-n+2p.} where p the number of estimated parameters p and σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} is computed from the version of the model that includes all possible regressors. That concludes this proof.

  Read more →
• 

  Lucy–Hook coaddition method

  The Lucy–Hook coaddition method is an image processing technique for combining sub-stepped astronomical image data onto a finer grid. The method allows the option of resolution and contrast enhancement or the choice of a conservative, re-convolved, output. Tests with very deep Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) imaging data of excellent quality show that these methods can be very effective and allow fine-scale features to be studied better than on the unprocessed images. The Lucy–Hook coaddition method is an extension of the standard Richardson–Lucy deconvolution iterative restoration method. For many purposes it may be more convenient to combine dithered datasets using the Drizzle method.

  Read more →
• 

  C4.5 algorithm

  C4.5 is an algorithm used to generate a decision tree developed by Ross Quinlan. C4.5 is an extension of Quinlan's earlier ID3 algorithm. The decision trees generated by C4.5 can be used for classification, and for this reason, C4.5 is often referred to as a statistical classifier. In 2011, authors of the Weka machine learning software described the C4.5 algorithm as "a landmark decision tree program that is probably the machine learning workhorse most widely used in practice to date". It became quite popular after ranking #1 in the Top 10 Algorithms in Data Mining pre-eminent paper published by Springer LNCS in 2008. == Algorithm == C4.5 builds decision trees from a set of training data in the same way as ID3, using the concept of information entropy. The training data is a set S = s 1 , s 2 , . . . {\displaystyle S={s_{1},s_{2},...}} of already classified samples. Each sample s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} consists of a p-dimensional vector ( x 1 , i , x 2 , i , . . . , x p , i ) {\displaystyle (x_{1,i},x_{2,i},...,x_{p,i})} , where the x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} represent attribute values or features of the sample, as well as the class in which s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} falls. At each node of the tree, C4.5 chooses the attribute of the data that most effectively splits its set of samples into subsets enriched in one class or the other. The splitting criterion is the normalized information gain (difference in entropy). The attribute with the highest normalized information gain is chosen to make the decision. The C4.5 algorithm then recurses on the partitioned sublists. This algorithm has a few base cases. All the samples in the list belong to the same class. When this happens, it simply creates a leaf node for the decision tree saying to choose that class. None of the features provide any information gain. In this case, C4.5 creates a decision node higher up the tree using the expected value of the class. Instance of previously unseen class encountered. Again, C4.5 creates a decision node higher up the tree using the expected value. === Pseudocode === In pseudocode, the general algorithm for building decision trees is: Check for the above base cases. For each attribute a, find the normalized information gain ratio from splitting on a. Let a_best be the attribute with the highest normalized information gain. Create a decision node that splits on a_best. Recurse on the sublists obtained by splitting on a_best, and add those nodes as children of node. == Improvements from ID3 algorithm == C4.5 made a number of improvements to ID3. Some of these are: Handling both continuous and discrete attributes: In order to handle continuous attributes, C4.5 creates a threshold and then splits the list into those whose attribute value is above the threshold and those that are less than or equal to it. Handling training data with missing attribute values: C4.5 allows attribute values to be marked as missing. Missing attribute values are simply not used in gain and entropy calculations. Handling attributes with differing costs. Pruning trees after creation: C4.5 goes back through the tree once it's been created and attempts to remove branches that do not help by replacing them with leaf nodes. == Improvements in C5.0/See5 algorithm == Quinlan went on to create C5.0 and See5 (C5.0 for Unix/Linux, See5 for Windows) which he markets commercially. C5.0 offers a number of improvements on C4.5. Some of these are: Speed - C5.0 is significantly faster than C4.5 (several orders of magnitude) Memory usage - C5.0 is more memory efficient than C4.5 Smaller decision trees - C5.0 gets similar results to C4.5 with considerably smaller decision trees. Support for boosting - Boosting improves the trees and gives them more accuracy. Weighting - C5.0 allows you to weight different cases and misclassification types. Winnowing - a C5.0 option automatically winnows the attributes to remove those that may be unhelpful. Source for a single-threaded Linux version of C5.0 is available under the GNU General Public License (GPL).

  Read more →
• 

  Tensor sketch

  In statistics, machine learning and algorithms, a tensor sketch is a type of dimensionality reduction that is particularly efficient when applied to vectors that have tensor structure. Such a sketch can be used to speed up explicit kernel methods, bilinear pooling in neural networks and is a cornerstone in many numerical linear algebra algorithms. == Mathematical definition == Mathematically, a dimensionality reduction or sketching matrix is a matrix M ∈ R k × d {\displaystyle M\in \mathbb {R} ^{k\times d}} , where k < d {\displaystyle k Read more →

• 

  Medoid

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

  Read more →
• 

  Douglas Parkhill

  Douglas F. Parkhill is a Canadian technologist and former research minister, best known for his pioneering work on what is now called cloud computing, and his work on Canada's Telidon videotex project. He started working at the Canadian ministry of Communications (now part of the Department of Trade and Industry) in 1969, having previously worked at the Mitre Corporation. He was responsible for many activities in communications satellites, computer communications, command and control systems and telecommunications. He was winner of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Outstanding Achievement award in 1982, the Conestoga shield for services to government and industry in computer communications research and development, the Touche Ross award for Telidon development. He was an author of several publications including the 1966 book, The Challenge of the Computer Utility. In the book, Parkhill thoroughly explored many of the modern-day characteristics of cloud computing (elastic provisioning through a utility service) as well as the comparison to the electricity industry and the use of public, private, government and community forms. The book won the McKinsey Foundation award for distinguished contributions to management literature. He worked with Dave Godfrey, the Canadian writer and novelist on a later book Gutenberg two about the social and political meaning of computer technology. He was in charge of research at the Federal Department of Communications at the time when the department was funding development of the Telidon videotext system, was heavily involved in promoting the system, and had overall control of the program. In a radio broadcast in 1980, he outlined some of the potential of the system, from financial information, to theatre reservations, with the ability to pay and print out tickets from the system. He later documented the history of the Telidon project, and the history of videotext in general. == Publications == The Challenge of the Computer Utility, Addison-Wesley, 1966, ISBN 0-201-05720-4 edited with Dave Godfrey, Gutenberg Two: The New Electronics and Social Change, Press Porcepic, 1979, ISBN 0-88878-191-1 The Beginning of a Beginning. Ottawa; Department of Communications, 1987. A history of the Telidon project.

  Read more →
• 

  Proper generalized decomposition

  The proper generalized decomposition (PGD) is an iterative numerical method for solving boundary value problems (BVPs), that is, partial differential equations constrained by a set of boundary conditions, such as the Poisson's equation or the Laplace's equation. The PGD algorithm computes an approximation of the solution of the BVP by successive enrichment. This means that, in each iteration, a new component (or mode) is computed and added to the approximation. In principle, the more modes obtained, the closer the approximation is to its theoretical solution. Unlike POD principal components, PGD modes are not necessarily orthogonal to each other. By selecting only the most relevant PGD modes, a reduced order model of the solution is obtained. Because of this, PGD is considered a dimensionality reduction algorithm. == Description == The proper generalized decomposition is a method characterized by a variational formulation of the problem, a discretization of the domain in the style of the finite element method, the assumption that the solution can be approximated as a separate representation and a numerical greedy algorithm to find the solution. === Variational formulation === In the Proper Generalized Decomposition method, the variational formulation involves translating the problem into a format where the solution can be approximated by minimizing (or sometimes maximizing) a functional. A functional is a scalar quantity that depends on a function, which in this case, represents our problem. The most commonly implemented variational formulation in PGD is the Bubnov-Galerkin method. This method is chosen for its ability to provide an approximate solution to complex problems, such as those described by partial differential equations (PDEs). In the Bubnov-Galerkin approach, the idea is to project the problem onto a space spanned by a finite number of basis functions. These basis functions are chosen to approximate the solution space of the problem. In the Bubnov-Galerkin method, we seek an approximate solution that satisfies the integral form of the PDEs over the domain of the problem. This is different from directly solving the differential equations. By doing so, the method transforms the problem into finding the coefficients that best fit this integral equation in the chosen function space. While the Bubnov-Galerkin method is prevalent, other variational formulations are also used in PGD, depending on the specific requirements and characteristics of the problem, such as: Petrov-Galerkin Method: This method is similar to the Bubnov-Galerkin approach but differs in the choice of test functions. In the Petrov-Galerkin method, the test functions (used to project the residual of the differential equation) are different from the trial functions (used to approximate the solution). This can lead to improved stability and accuracy for certain types of problems. Collocation Method: In collocation methods, the differential equation is satisfied at a finite number of points in the domain, known as collocation points. This approach can be simpler and more direct than the integral-based methods like Galerkin's, but it may also be less stable for some problems. Least Squares Method: This approach involves minimizing the square of the residual of the differential equation over the domain. It is particularly useful when dealing with problems where traditional methods struggle with stability or convergence. Mixed Finite Element Method: In mixed methods, additional variables (such as fluxes or gradients) are introduced and approximated along with the primary variable of interest. This can lead to more accurate and stable solutions for certain problems, especially those involving incompressibility or conservation laws. Discontinuous Galerkin Method: This is a variant of the Galerkin method where the solution is allowed to be discontinuous across element boundaries. This method is particularly useful for problems with sharp gradients or discontinuities. === Domain discretization === The discretization of the domain is a well defined set of procedures that cover (a) the creation of finite element meshes, (b) the definition of basis function on reference elements (also called shape functions) and (c) the mapping of reference elements onto the elements of the mesh. === Separate representation === PGD assumes that the solution u of a (multidimensional) problem can be approximated as a separate representation of the form u ≈ u N ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) = ∑ i = 1 N X 1 i ( x 1 ) ⋅ X 2 i ( x 2 ) ⋯ X d i ( x d ) , {\displaystyle \mathbf {u} \approx \mathbf {u} ^{N}(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\mathbf {X_{1}} _{i}(x_{1})\cdot \mathbf {X_{2}} _{i}(x_{2})\cdots \mathbf {X_{d}} _{i}(x_{d}),} where the number of addends N and the functional products X1(x1), X2(x2), ..., Xd(xd), each depending on a variable (or variables), are unknown beforehand. === Greedy algorithm === The solution is sought by applying a greedy algorithm, usually the fixed point algorithm, to the weak formulation of the problem. For each iteration i of the algorithm, a mode of the solution is computed. Each mode consists of a set of numerical values of the functional products X1(x1), ..., Xd(xd), which enrich the approximation of the solution. Due to the greedy nature of the algorithm, the term 'enrich' is used rather than 'improve', since some modes may actually worsen the approach. The number of computed modes required to obtain an approximation of the solution below a certain error threshold depends on the stopping criterion of the iterative algorithm. == Features == PGD is suitable for solving high-dimensional problems, since it overcomes the limitations of classical approaches. In particular, PGD avoids the curse of dimensionality, as solving decoupled problems is computationally much less expensive than solving multidimensional problems. Therefore, PGD enables to re-adapt parametric problems into a multidimensional framework by setting the parameters of the problem as extra coordinates: u ≈ u N ( x 1 , … , x d ; k 1 , … , k p ) = ∑ i = 1 N X 1 i ( x 1 ) ⋯ X d i ( x d ) ⋅ K 1 i ( k 1 ) ⋯ K p i ( k p ) , {\displaystyle \mathbf {u} \approx \mathbf {u} ^{N}(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d};k_{1},\ldots ,k_{p})=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\mathbf {X_{1}} _{i}(x_{1})\cdots \mathbf {X_{d}} _{i}(x_{d})\cdot \mathbf {K_{1}} _{i}(k_{1})\cdots \mathbf {K_{p}} _{i}(k_{p}),} where a series of functional products K1(k1), K2(k2), ..., Kp(kp), each depending on a parameter (or parameters), has been incorporated to the equation. In this case, the obtained approximation of the solution is called computational vademecum: a general meta-model containing all the particular solutions for every possible value of the involved parameters. == Sparse Subspace Learning == The Sparse Subspace Learning (SSL) method leverages the use of hierarchical collocation to approximate the numerical solution of parametric models. With respect to traditional projection-based reduced order modeling, the use of a collocation enables non-intrusive approach based on sparse adaptive sampling of the parametric space. This allows to recover the lowdimensional structure of the parametric solution subspace while also learning the functional dependency from the parameters in explicit form. A sparse low-rank approximate tensor representation of the parametric solution can be built through an incremental strategy that only needs to have access to the output of a deterministic solver. Non-intrusiveness makes this approach straightforwardly applicable to challenging problems characterized by nonlinearity or non affine weak forms.

  Read more →
• 

  Charge based boundary element fast multipole method

  The charge-based formulation of the boundary element method (BEM) is a dimensionality reduction numerical technique that is used to model quasistatic electromagnetic phenomena in highly complex conducting media (targeting, e.g., the human brain) with a very large (up to approximately 1 billion) number of unknowns. The charge-based BEM solves an integral equation of the potential theory written in terms of the induced surface charge density. This formulation is naturally combined with fast multipole method (FMM) acceleration, and the entire method is known as charge-based BEM-FMM. The combination of BEM and FMM is a common technique in different areas of computational electromagnetics and, in the context of bioelectromagnetism, it provides improvements over the finite element method. == Historical development == Along with more common electric potential-based BEM, the quasistatic charge-based BEM, derived in terms of the single-layer (charge) density, for a single-compartment medium has been known in the potential theory since the beginning of the 20th century. For multi-compartment conducting media, the surface charge density formulation first appeared in discretized form (for faceted interfaces) in the 1964 paper by Gelernter and Swihart. A subsequent continuous form, including time-dependent and dielectric effects, appeared in the 1967 paper by Barnard, Duck, and Lynn. The charge-based BEM has also been formulated for conducting, dielectric, and magnetic media, and used in different applications. In 2009, Greengard et al. successfully applied the charge-based BEM with fast multipole acceleration to molecular electrostatics of dielectrics. A similar approach to realistic modeling of the human brain with multiple conducting compartments was first described by Makarov et al. in 2018. Along with this, the BEM-based multilevel fast multipole method has been widely used in radar and antenna studies at microwave frequencies as well as in acoustics. == Physical background - surface charges in biological media == The charge-based BEM is based on the concept of an impressed (or primary) electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} and a secondary electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} . The impressed field is usually known a priori or is trivial to find. For the human brain, the impressed electric field can be classified as one of the following: A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed density of EEG or MEG current sources in a homogeneous infinite medium with the conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } at the source location; An instantaneous solenoidal field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of an induction coil obtained from Faraday's law of induction in a homogeneous infinite medium (air), when transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) problems are concerned; A surface field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed surface current density J i = σ E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {J} ^{i}=\sigma \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of current electrodes injecting electric current at a boundary of a compartment with conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } when transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) or deep brain stimulation (DBS) are concerned; A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of charges deposited on voltage electrodes for tDCS or DBS. This specific problem requires a coupled treatment since these charges will depend on the environment; In application to multiscale modeling, a field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} obtained from any other macroscopic numerical solution in a small (mesoscale or microscale) spatial domain within the brain. For example, a constant field can be used. When the impressed field is "turned on", free charges located within a conducting volume D immediately begin to redistribute and accumulate at the boundaries (interfaces) of regions of different conductivity in D. A surface charge density ρ ( r ) {\displaystyle \rho (\mathbf {r} )} appears on the conductivity interfaces. This charge density induces a secondary conservative electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} following Coulomb's law. One example is a human under a direct current powerline with the known field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} directed down. The superior surface of the human's conducting body will be charged negatively while its inferior portion is charged positively. These surface charges create a secondary electric field that effectively cancels or blocks the primary field everywhere in the body so that no current will flow within the body under DC steady state conditions. Another example is a human head with electrodes attached. At any conductivity interface with a normal vector n {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} } pointing from an "inside" (-) compartment of conductivity σ − {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}} to an "outside" (+) compartment of conductivity σ + {\displaystyle \sigma ^{+}} , Kirchhoff's current law requires continuity of the normal component of the electric current density. This leads to the interfacial boundary condition in the form for every facet at a triangulated interface. As long as σ ± {\displaystyle \sigma ^{\pm }} are different from each other, the two normal components of the electric field, E ± ⋅ n {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{\pm }\cdot \mathbf {n} } , must also be different. Such a jump across the interface is only possible when a sheet of surface charge exists at that interface. Thus, if an electric current or voltage is applied, the surface charge density follows. The goal of the numerical analysis is to find the unknown surface charge distribution and thus the total electric field E = E i + E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =\mathbf {E} ^{i}+\mathbf {E} ^{s}} (and the total electric potential if required) anywhere in space. == System of equations for surface charges == Below, a derivation is given based on Gauss's law and Coulomb's law. All conductivity interfaces, denoted by S, are discretized into planar triangular facets t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} with centers r m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}} . Assume that an m-th facet with the normal vector n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} _{m}} and area A m {\displaystyle A_{m}} carries a uniform surface charge density ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . If a volumetric tetrahedral mesh were present, the charged facets would belong to tetrahedra with different conductivity values. We first compute the electric field E m + {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}} at the point r m + δ n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}+\delta \mathbf {n} _{m}} , for δ → 0 + {\displaystyle \delta \rightarrow 0^{+}} i.e., just outside facet 𝑚 at its center. This field contains three contributions: The continuous impressed electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} itself; An electric field of the m-th charged facet itself. Very close to the facet, it can be approximated as the electric field of an infinite sheet of uniform surface charge ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . By Gauss's law, it is given by + ρ m / 2 ε 0 ⋅ n m {\displaystyle +\rho _{m}/2\varepsilon _{0}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} where ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} is a background electrical permittivity; An electric field generated by all other facets t n {\displaystyle t_{n}} , which we approximate as point charges of charge A n ρ n {\displaystyle A_{n}\rho _{n}} at each center r n {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{n}} . A similar treatment holds for the electric field E m − {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}} just inside facet 𝑚, but the electric field of the flat sheet of charge changes its sign. Using Coulomb's law to calculate the contribution of facets different from t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} , we find From this equation, we see that the normal component of the electric field indeed undergoes a jump through the charged interface. This is equivalent to a jump relation of the potential theory. As a second step, the two expressions for E m ± {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{\pm }} are substituted into the interfacial boundary condition σ − E m − ⋅ n m = σ + E m + ⋅ n m {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}=\sigma ^{+}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} , applied to every facet 𝑚. This operation leads to a system of linear equations for unknown charge densities ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} which solves the problem: where K m = σ − − σ + σ − + σ + {\displaystyle K_{m}={\frac {\sigma ^{-}-\sigma ^{+}}{\sigma ^{-}+\sigma ^{+}}}} is the electric conductivity contrast at the m-th facet. The normalization constant ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} will cancel out after the solution is substituted in the expression for E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} and becomes redundant. == Application of fast multipole method == For modern characterizations of brain topologies with ever-increasing levels of complexity, the above system of equations for ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} is very large; it is t

  Read more →
• 

  Nearest centroid classifier

  In machine learning, a nearest centroid classifier or nearest prototype classifier is a classification model that assigns to observations the label of the class of training samples whose mean (centroid) is closest to the observation. When applied to text classification using word vectors containing tfidf weights to represent documents, the nearest centroid classifier is known as the Rocchio classifier because of its similarity to the Rocchio algorithm for relevance feedback. An extended version of the nearest centroid classifier has found applications in the medical domain, specifically classification of tumors. == Algorithm == === Training === Given labeled training samples { ( x → 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x → n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \textstyle \{({\vec {x}}_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,({\vec {x}}_{n},y_{n})\}} with class labels y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \mathbf {Y} } , compute the per-class centroids μ → ℓ = 1 | C ℓ | ∑ i ∈ C ℓ x → i {\displaystyle \textstyle {\vec {\mu }}_{\ell }={\frac {1}{|C_{\ell }|}}{\underset {i\in C_{\ell }}{\sum }}{\vec {x}}_{i}} where C ℓ {\displaystyle C_{\ell }} is the set of indices of samples belonging to class ℓ ∈ Y {\displaystyle \ell \in \mathbf {Y} } . === Prediction === The class assigned to an observation x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is y ^ = arg ⁡ min ℓ ∈ Y ‖ μ → ℓ − x → ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\arg \min }_{\ell \in \mathbf {Y} }\|{\vec {\mu }}_{\ell }-{\vec {x}}\|} .

  Read more →
• 

  Universal psychometrics

  Universal psychometrics encompasses psychometrics instruments that could measure the psychological properties of any intelligent agent. Up until the early 21st century, psychometrics relied heavily on psychological tests that require the subject to cooperate and answer questions, the most famous example being an intelligence test. Such methods are only applicable to the measurement of human psychological properties. As a result, some researchers have proposed the idea of universal psychometrics - they suggest developing testing methods that allow for the measurement of non-human entities' psychological properties. For example, it has been suggested that the Turing test is a form of universal psychometrics. This test involves having testers (without any foreknowledge) attempt to distinguish a human from a machine by interacting with both (while not being to see either individuals). It is supposed that if the machine is equally intelligent to a human, the testers will not be able to distinguish between the two, i.e., their guesses will not be better than chance. Thus, Turing test could measure the intelligence (a psychological variable) of an AI. Other instruments proposed for universal psychometrics include reinforcement learning and measuring the ability to predict complexity.

  Read more →
• 

  Synaptic weight

  In neuroscience and computer science, synaptic weight refers to the strength or amplitude of a connection between two nodes, corresponding in biology to the amount of influence the firing of one neuron has on another. The term is typically used in artificial and biological neural network research. == Computation == In a computational neural network, a vector or set of inputs x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} and outputs y {\displaystyle {\textbf {y}}} , or pre- and post-synaptic neurons respectively, are interconnected with synaptic weights represented by the matrix w {\displaystyle w} , where for a linear neuron y j = ∑ i w i j x i or y = w x {\displaystyle y_{j}=\sum _{i}w_{ij}x_{i}~~{\textrm {or}}~~{\textbf {y}}=w{\textbf {x}}} . where the rows of the synaptic matrix represent the vector of synaptic weights for the output indexed by j {\displaystyle j} . The synaptic weight is changed by using a learning rule, the most basic of which is Hebb's rule, which is usually stated in biological terms as Neurons that fire together, wire together. Computationally, this means that if a large signal from one of the input neurons results in a large signal from one of the output neurons, then the synaptic weight between those two neurons will increase. The rule is unstable, however, and is typically modified using such variations as Oja's rule, radial basis functions or the backpropagation algorithm. == Biology == For biological networks, the effect of synaptic weights is not as simple as for linear neurons or Hebbian learning. However, biophysical models such as BCM theory have seen some success in mathematically describing these networks. In the mammalian central nervous system, signal transmission is carried out by interconnected networks of nerve cells, or neurons. For the basic pyramidal neuron, the input signal is carried by the axon, which releases neurotransmitter chemicals into the synapse which is picked up by the dendrites of the next neuron, which can then generate an action potential which is analogous to the output signal in the computational case. The synaptic weight in this process is determined by several variable factors: How well the input signal propagates through the axon (see myelination), The amount of neurotransmitter released into the synapse and the amount that can be absorbed in the following cell (determined by the number of AMPA and NMDA receptors on the cell membrane and the amount of intracellular calcium and other ions), The number of such connections made by the axon to the dendrites, How well the signal propagates and integrates in the postsynaptic cell. The changes in synaptic weight that occur is known as synaptic plasticity, and the process behind long-term changes (long-term potentiation and depression) is still poorly understood. Hebb's original learning rule was originally applied to biological systems, but has had to undergo many modifications as a number of theoretical and experimental problems came to light.

  Read more →
• 

  Sparse PCA

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

  Read more →