AI Paraphrasing Tool

AI Paraphrasing Tool — hands-on reviews, top picks, pricing, pros and cons and a practical how-to guide on Aizhi.

• 

  BabyCenter

  BabyCenter is an online media company based in San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles that provides information on conception, pregnancy, birth, and early childhood development for parents and expecting parents. BabyCenter operates 8 country and region specific properties including websites, apps, emails, print publications, and an online community where parents can connect on a variety of topics. The visitors of website and the users of the app can sign up for free weekly email newsletters that guide them through pregnancy and their child's development. In addition to publishing detailed, medically reviewed information about pregnancy and parenting, BabyCenter, under its Mission Motherhood initiative, ran numerous social programs and has participated in public health initiatives in partnership with hospitals, healthcare agencies, nonprofits, NGOs, and government agencies to provide pregnancy and parenting advice. It also annually publishes the most popular baby names. BabyCenter LLC is part of the Everyday Health Group, a division of Ziff Davis. == History == BabyCenter was founded in October 1997 by Stanford University MBA graduates Matt Glickman and Mark Selcow, who recognized a need for information about pregnancy and parenting on the internet. BabyCenter was initially funded through $13.5 million in startup capital funding from venture capital firms, including Bessemer Venture Partners, Intel, and Trinity Ventures. The funds were used to open the BabyCenter Store in October 1998. In the early years of its operation, BabyCenter offered multiple resources and services for parents, including a website that provided medically reviewed information and guidance to new and expectant parents on such topics as fertility, labor, and childcare; a weekly email for pregnant women tailored to their week of pregnancy (based on their pregnancy due date); and community groups and chat rooms for pregnant couples and parents to discuss pregnancy and child-rearing strategies. The site grew quickly, and by early 1999 had 175 employees and an annual revenue of $35 million. In April of that year, the two founders sold BabyCenter to another website, eToys.com, for $190 million in stock. Twenty-three months later, in 2001, shortly before declaring bankruptcy, eToys sold the site to Johnson & Johnson for $10 million. During the eToys ownership, BabyCenter launched its first international E-commerce site in the UK during the spring of 2000. Starting in 2005, BabyCenter launched an expansion plan, extending its global network to Australia, Canada and other countries, staffing each outpost with local editors. In 2007, BabyCenter debuted a Mandarin-language site in China, initiated operations in India, launched a Spanish language website, and introduced its first mobile site. BabyCenter released My Pregnancy Today, its first mobile app, to Apple's App Store in August 2010 and to the Android market in April 2011. The app provided daily information, nutrition tips, advice relevant to the user's week of pregnancy, and 3-D animated videos showcasing a baby's development in utero. The My Pregnancy app was joined by a My Baby Today app in October 2011. In 2015, BabyCenter released Mom Feed, its first mobile app for parents of toddlers and older children (ages 1 to 8). Mom Feed offered personalized, stage-based information as well as content from the BabyCenter Community and Blog in a real-time stream. In 2016, BabyCenter launched its web-based Baby Names Finder. In 2018, Mom Feed was discontinued and BabyCenter replaced that experience with a separate Child Health content area on its website. Also in 2018, BabyCenter launched its mobile baby name generator, the Baby Names app, which, like the web-based Baby Names Finder, leverages data from hundreds of thousands of parents that culminates in its annual most popular Baby Names Report. In 2019, Johnson & Johnson sold Baby Center to Everyday Health Group, a division of New York-based parent company of Ziff Davis, Inc. Neither side disclosed terms of the deal. == Popular research == BabyCenter's most popular baby names is released annually and often cited by the media. In March 2024, BabyCenter did a review of the app Temu and said that the website has found products that have been recalled, could be counterfeit or circumvent U.S. safety standards and features that are important in preventing issues like choking. In 2025, BabyCenter released a report about the cost of raising a newborn baby in the first year. == Content and products == === Websites === BabyCenter has 8 country and region-specific websites around the world, including sites for the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, India, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Latin America. Users can find parenting and pregnancy advice in seven languages: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, French, German, and Hindi BabyCenter content for each country- or region-specific site is written by an editorial team based in that country or region. Medical and health content for each site is reviewed by a medical advisory board based there and adheres to that country or region's medical standards. For example, the U.S. site works with and follows the recommendations of such U.S. medical authorities as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetrics & Gynecology and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. BabyCenter regularly conducts research and provides thought leadership on pregnancy and parenting topics, popularly cited by major media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Insider, MarketWatch, Axios. === Community, blogs and social === From its earliest days, BabyCenter has had a community area that allows people to join a group of parents with children born in the same month, known as a Birth Club. BabyCenter launched a blog called Momformation in 2007. Eventually, the name was changed to BabyCenter Blog. In April 2021, the BabyCenter Community was identified in a research article within the journal PLOS Computational Biology as facilitating "unobstructed communication" between parents, which avoids the "strong echo chamber phenomena" that can foster and perpetuate vaccine misinformation. === My Pregnancy and Baby Today App === The app is available in six languages, although not all features are supported for every market. Initially the apps only featured pregnancy articles that could be found on the BabyCenter website, but over the years the feature set has expanded to include a growing list of app-specific tools such as weekly fetal development information, a kick tracker, a birth plan worksheet, a contraction timer, a baby growth tracker, a photo journal for pregnant women to record their pregnancy bellies, and a photo journal for documenting a baby's first year. === Mission Motherhood™ === BabyCenter was a cofounder of the Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action (MAMA), a public-private partnership between USAID, Johnson & Johnson, the UN Foundation, and BabyCenter from 2011 to-to 2015. The MAMA program sparked the creation of MomConnect, an initiative of the South African Department of Health for which BabyCenter developed SMS messages with health information about pregnancy and a child's first year of life. BabyCenter helped develop similar messages for mMitra, a voice messaging program in India. A research article in the Maternal and Child Health Journal stated the mMitra program offered strong evidence "that tailored mobile phone voice messages can improve key infant care knowledge and practices that lead to improved infant health outcomes in low-resource settings. BabyCenter's Mission Motherhood Messages were available to qualifying organizations on the BabyCenter website. BabyCenter contributed websites for Free Basics. These websites featured age and stage-based pregnancy and baby articles targeted to low-income, lower-education women who would not otherwise have access to health information. Content developed for this program was also used to support a UNICEF SMS program during the 2016 Zika outbreak. == Awards and recognition == In 1998, BabyCenter won a Webby Award for Best Home Site. Since then, it has been nominated for a Webby Award 19 times and won either a Webby or a People's Choice Webby Award 12 times – including a People's Voice win in 2021 for Lifestyle websites and mobile sites. In 2002, it won Service Journalism award from Online Journalism Awards (OJA). In 2015, BabyCenter won five Digital Health Awards for content about autism in children. In 2016, BabyCenter won seven Digital Health Awards: four for videos about the aches and pains of pregnancy, baby sleep, and the walking milestone in child development; two for articles about baby sleep training and sleep apnea in babies; and one for the BabyCenter mobile app My Pregnancy & Baby Today. In 2021, Forbes Health chose My Pregnancy & Baby Today as the best pregnancy app of 2021, and Women's Health identified it

  Read more →
• 

  Moral graph

  In graph theory, a moral graph is used to find the equivalent undirected form of a directed acyclic graph. It is a key step of the junction tree algorithm, used in belief propagation on graphical models. The moralized counterpart of a directed acyclic graph is formed by adding edges between all pairs of non-adjacent nodes that have a common child, and then making all edges in the graph undirected. Equivalently, a moral graph of a directed acyclic graph G is an undirected graph in which each node of the original G is now connected to its Markov blanket. The name stems from the fact that, in a moral graph, two nodes that have a common child are required to be married by sharing an edge. Moralization may also be applied to mixed graphs, called in this context "chain graphs". In a chain graph, a connected component of the undirected subgraph is called a chain. Moralization adds an undirected edge between any two vertices that both have outgoing edges to the same chain, and then forgets the orientation of the directed edges of the graph. == Weakly recursively simplicial == A graph is weakly recursively simplicial if it has a simplicial vertex and the subgraph after removing a simplicial vertex and some edges (possibly none) between its neighbours is weakly recursively simplicial. A graph is moral if and only if it is weakly recursively simplicial. A chordal graph (a.k.a., recursive simplicial) is a special case of weakly recursively simplicial when no edge is removed during the elimination process. Therefore, a chordal graph is also moral. But a moral graph is not necessarily chordal. == Recognising moral graphs == Unlike chordal graphs that can be recognised in polynomial time, Verma & Pearl (1993) proved that deciding whether or not a graph is moral is NP-complete.

  Read more →
• 

  Occam learning

  In computational learning theory, Occam learning is a model of algorithmic learning where the objective of the learner is to output a succinct representation of received training data. This is closely related to probably approximately correct (PAC) learning, where the learner is evaluated on its predictive power of a test set. Occam learnability implies PAC learning, and for a wide variety of concept classes, the converse is also true: PAC learnability implies Occam learnability. == Introduction == Occam Learning is named after Occam's razor, which is a principle stating that, given all other things being equal, a shorter explanation for observed data should be favored over a lengthier explanation. The theory of Occam learning is a formal and mathematical justification for this principle. It was first shown by Blumer, et al. that Occam learning implies PAC learning, which is the standard model of learning in computational learning theory. In other words, parsimony (of the output hypothesis) implies predictive power. == Definition of Occam learning == The succinctness of a concept c {\displaystyle c} in concept class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} can be expressed by the length s i z e ( c ) {\displaystyle size(c)} of the shortest bit string that can represent c {\displaystyle c} in C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} . Occam learning connects the succinctness of a learning algorithm's output to its predictive power on unseen data. Let C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} and H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be concept classes containing target concepts and hypotheses respectively. Then, for constants α ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \alpha \geq 0} and 0 ≤ β < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \beta <1} , a learning algorithm L {\displaystyle L} is an ( α , β ) {\displaystyle (\alpha ,\beta )} -Occam algorithm for C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} iff, given a set S = { x 1 , … , x m } {\displaystyle S=\{x_{1},\dots ,x_{m}\}} of m {\displaystyle m} samples labeled according to a concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in {\mathcal {C}}} , L {\displaystyle L} outputs a hypothesis h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that h {\displaystyle h} is consistent with c {\displaystyle c} on S {\displaystyle S} (that is, h ( x ) = c ( x ) , ∀ x ∈ S {\displaystyle h(x)=c(x),\forall x\in S} ), and s i z e ( h ) ≤ ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α m β {\displaystyle size(h)\leq (n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha }m^{\beta }} where n {\displaystyle n} is the maximum length of any sample x ∈ S {\displaystyle x\in S} . An Occam algorithm is called efficient if it runs in time polynomial in n {\displaystyle n} , m {\displaystyle m} , and s i z e ( c ) . {\displaystyle size(c).} We say a concept class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is Occam learnable with respect to a hypothesis class H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} if there exists an efficient Occam algorithm for C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} using H . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}.} == The relation between Occam and PAC learning == Occam learnability implies PAC learnability, as the following theorem of Blumer, et al. shows: === Theorem (Occam learning implies PAC learning) === Let L {\displaystyle L} be an efficient ( α , β ) {\displaystyle (\alpha ,\beta )} -Occam algorithm for C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . Then there exists a constant a > 0 {\displaystyle a>0} such that for any 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} , for any distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} , given m ≥ a ( 1 ϵ log ⁡ 1 δ + ( ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α ϵ ) 1 1 − β ) {\displaystyle m\geq a\left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}+\left({\frac {(n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha }}{\epsilon }}\right)^{\frac {1}{1-\beta }}\right)} samples drawn from D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} and labelled according to a concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in {\mathcal {C}}} of length n {\displaystyle n} bits each, the algorithm L {\displaystyle L} will output a hypothesis h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \epsilon } with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } .Here, e r r o r ( h ) {\displaystyle error(h)} is with respect to the concept c {\displaystyle c} and distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . This implies that the algorithm L {\displaystyle L} is also a PAC learner for the concept class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} using hypothesis class H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . A slightly more general formulation is as follows: === Theorem (Occam learning implies PAC learning, cardinality version) === Let 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} . Let L {\displaystyle L} be an algorithm such that, given m {\displaystyle m} samples drawn from a fixed but unknown distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} and labeled according to a concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in {\mathcal {C}}} of length n {\displaystyle n} bits each, outputs a hypothesis h ∈ H n , m {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}} that is consistent with the labeled samples. Then, there exists a constant b {\displaystyle b} such that if log ⁡ | H n , m | ≤ b ϵ m − log ⁡ 1 δ {\displaystyle \log |{\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}|\leq b\epsilon m-\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}} , then L {\displaystyle L} is guaranteed to output a hypothesis h ∈ H n , m {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}} such that e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \epsilon } with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } . While the above theorems show that Occam learning is sufficient for PAC learning, it doesn't say anything about necessity. Board and Pitt show that, for a wide variety of concept classes, Occam learning is in fact necessary for PAC learning. They proved that for any concept class that is polynomially closed under exception lists, PAC learnability implies the existence of an Occam algorithm for that concept class. Concept classes that are polynomially closed under exception lists include Boolean formulas, circuits, deterministic finite automata, decision-lists, decision-trees, and other geometrically defined concept classes. A concept class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is polynomially closed under exception lists if there exists a polynomial-time algorithm A {\displaystyle A} such that, when given the representation of a concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in {\mathcal {C}}} and a finite list E {\displaystyle E} of exceptions, outputs a representation of a concept c ′ ∈ C {\displaystyle c'\in {\mathcal {C}}} such that the concepts c {\displaystyle c} and c ′ {\displaystyle c'} agree except on the set E {\displaystyle E} . == Proof that Occam learning implies PAC learning == We first prove the Cardinality version. Call a hypothesis h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} bad if e r r o r ( h ) ≥ ϵ {\displaystyle error(h)\geq \epsilon } , where again e r r o r ( h ) {\displaystyle error(h)} is with respect to the true concept c {\displaystyle c} and the underlying distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . The probability that a set of samples S {\displaystyle S} is consistent with h {\displaystyle h} is at most ( 1 − ϵ ) m {\displaystyle (1-\epsilon )^{m}} , by the independence of the samples. By the union bound, the probability that there exists a bad hypothesis in H n , m {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}} is at most | H n , m | ( 1 − ϵ ) m {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}|(1-\epsilon )^{m}} , which is less than δ {\displaystyle \delta } if log ⁡ | H n , m | ≤ O ( ϵ m ) − log ⁡ 1 δ {\displaystyle \log |{\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}|\leq O(\epsilon m)-\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}} . This concludes the proof of the second theorem above. Using the second theorem, we can prove the first theorem. Since we have a ( α , β ) {\displaystyle (\alpha ,\beta )} -Occam algorithm, this means that any hypothesis output by L {\displaystyle L} can be represented by at most ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α m β {\displaystyle (n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha }m^{\beta }} bits, and thus log ⁡ | H n , m | ≤ ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α m β {\displaystyle \log |{\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}|\leq (n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha }m^{\beta }} . This is less than O ( ϵ m ) − log ⁡ 1 δ {\displaystyle O(\epsilon m)-\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}} if we set m ≥ a ( 1 ϵ log ⁡ 1 δ + ( ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α ) ϵ ) 1 1 − β ) {\displaystyle m\geq a\left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}+\left({\frac {(n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha })}{\epsilon }}\right)^{\frac {1}{1-\beta }}\right)} for some constant a > 0 {\displaystyle a>0} . Thus, by the Cardinality version Theorem, L {\displaystyle L} will output a consistent hypothesis h {\displaystyle h} with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } . This concludes the proof of the first theorem above. == Improving sample complexity for common problems == Though Occam and PAC learnability are equivalent, the Occam framework can be used to produce tighter bounds on the sample complexity of classical problems including conjunctions, co

  Read more →
• 

  Fitness function

  A fitness function is a particular type of objective or cost function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given candidate solution is to achieving the set aims. It is an important component of evolutionary algorithms (EA), such as genetic programming, evolution strategies or genetic algorithms. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. For this purpose, many candidate solutions are generated, which are evaluated using a fitness function in order to guide the evolutionary development towards the desired goal. Similar quality functions are also used in other metaheuristics, such as ant colony optimization or particle swarm optimization. In the field of EAs, each candidate solution, also called an individual, is commonly represented as a string of numbers (referred to as a chromosome). After each round of testing or simulation the idea is to delete the n worst individuals, and to breed n new ones from the best solutions. Each individual must therefore to be assigned a quality number indicating how close it has come to the overall specification, and this is generated by applying the fitness function to the test or simulation results obtained from that candidate solution. Two main classes of fitness functions exist: one where the fitness function does not change, as in optimizing a fixed function or testing with a fixed set of test cases; and one where the fitness function is mutable, as in niche differentiation or co-evolving the set of test cases. Another way of looking at fitness functions is in terms of a fitness landscape, which shows the fitness for each possible chromosome. In the following, it is assumed that the fitness is determined based on an evaluation that remains unchanged during an optimization run. A fitness function does not necessarily have to be able to calculate an absolute value, as it is sometimes sufficient to compare candidates in order to select the better one. A relative indication of fitness (candidate a is better than b) is sufficient in some cases, such as tournament selection or Pareto optimization. == Requirements of evaluation and fitness function == The quality of the evaluation and calculation of a fitness function is fundamental to the success of an EA optimisation. It implements Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest". Without fitness-based selection mechanisms for mate selection and offspring acceptance, EA search would be blind and hardly distinguishable from the Monte Carlo method. When setting up a fitness function, one must always be aware that it is about more than just describing the desired target state. Rather, the evolutionary search on the way to the optimum should also be supported as much as possible (see also section on auxiliary objectives), if and insofar as this is not already done by the fitness function alone. If the fitness function is designed badly, the algorithm will either converge on an inappropriate solution, or will have difficulty converging at all. Definition of the fitness function is not straightforward in many cases and often is performed iteratively if the fittest solutions produced by an EA is not what is desired. Interactive genetic algorithms address this difficulty by outsourcing evaluation to external agents which are normally humans. == Computational efficiency == The fitness function should not only closely align with the designer's goal, but also be computationally efficient. Execution speed is crucial, as a typical evolutionary algorithm must be iterated many times in order to produce a usable result for a non-trivial problem. Fitness approximation may be appropriate, especially in the following cases: Fitness computation time of a single solution is extremely high Precise model for fitness computation is missing The fitness function is uncertain or noisy. Alternatively or also in addition to the fitness approximation, the fitness calculations can also be distributed to a parallel computer in order to reduce the execution times. Depending on the population model of the EA used, both the EA itself and the fitness calculations of all offspring of one generation can be executed in parallel. == Multi-objective optimization == Practical applications usually aim at optimizing multiple and at least partially conflicting objectives. Two fundamentally different approaches are often used for this purpose, Pareto optimization and optimization based on fitness calculated using the weighted sum. === Weighted sum and penalty functions === When optimizing with the weighted sum, the single values of the O {\displaystyle O} objectives are first normalized so that they can be compared. This can be done with the help of costs or by specifying target values and determining the current value as the degree of fulfillment. Costs or degrees of fulfillment can then be compared with each other and, if required, can also be mapped to a uniform fitness scale. Without loss of generality, fitness is assumed to represent a value to be maximized. Each objective o i {\displaystyle o_{i}} is assigned a weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the form of a percentage value so that the overall raw fitness f r a w {\displaystyle f_{raw}} can be calculated as a weighted sum: f r a w = ∑ i = 1 O o i ⋅ w i w i t h ∑ i = 1 O w i = 1 {\displaystyle f_{raw}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{o_{i}\cdot w_{i}}\quad {\mathsf {with}}\quad \sum _{i=1}^{O}{w_{i}}=1} A violation of R {\displaystyle R} restrictions r j {\displaystyle r_{j}} can be included in the fitness determined in this way in the form of penalty functions. For this purpose, a function p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle pf_{j}(r_{j})} can be defined for each restriction which returns a value between 0 {\displaystyle 0} and 1 {\displaystyle 1} depending on the degree of violation, with the result being 1 {\displaystyle 1} if there is no violation. The previously determined raw fitness is multiplied by the penalty function(s) and the result is then the final fitness f f i n a l {\displaystyle f_{final}} : f f i n a l = f r a w ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) = ∑ i = 1 O ( o i ⋅ w i ) ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle f_{final}=f_{raw}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{(o_{i}\cdot w_{i})}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}} This approach is simple and has the advantage of being able to combine any number of objectives and restrictions. The disadvantage is that different objectives can compensate each other and that the weights have to be defined before the optimization. This means that the compromise lines must be defined before optimization, which is why optimization with the weighted sum is also referred to as the a priori method. In addition, certain solutions may not be obtained, see the section on the comparison of both types of optimization. === Pareto optimization === A solution is called Pareto-optimal if the improvement of one objective is only possible with a deterioration of at least one other objective. The set of all Pareto-optimal solutions, also called Pareto set, represents the set of all optimal compromises between the objectives. The figure below on the right shows an example of the Pareto set of two objectives f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} to be maximized. The elements of the set form the Pareto front (green line). From this set, a human decision maker must subsequently select the desired compromise solution. Constraints are included in Pareto optimization in that solutions without constraint violations are per se better than those with violations. If two solutions to be compared each have constraint violations, the respective extent of the violations decides. It was recognized early on that EAs with their simultaneously considered solution set are well suited to finding solutions in one run that cover the Pareto front sufficiently well. They are therefore well suited as a-posteriori methods for multi-objective optimization, in which the final decision is made by a human decision maker after optimization and determination of the Pareto front. Besides the SPEA2, the NSGA-II and NSGA-III have established themselves as standard methods. The advantage of Pareto optimization is that, in contrast to the weighted sum, it provides all alternatives that are equivalent in terms of the objectives as an overall solution. The disadvantage is that a visualization of the alternatives becomes problematic or even impossible from four objectives on. Furthermore, the effort increases exponentially with the number of objectives. If there are more than three or four objectives, some have to be combined using the weighted sum or other aggregation methods. === Comparison of both types of assessment === With the help of the weighted sum, the total Pareto front can be obtained by a suitable choice of weights, provided that it is convex

  Read more →
• 

  Mistral Vibe

  Mistral Vibe or Vibe (Le Chat until May 2026), is a chatbot that uses generative artificial intelligence developed in France by Mistral AI. Mistral Vibe is available in iOS and Android. Its services are operated on a freemium model. == History == In February 2024, Mistral AI released Le Chat. In January 2025, Mistral AI made a content deal with Agence France-Presse (AFP) that lets Le Chat query AFP's entire archive dating back to 1983. On 6 February 2025, a mobile app for Le Chat was released for iOS and Android, and a subscription tier, Pro, was introduced at a cost of $14.99 per month. In July 2025, Mistral AI released Voxtral, an open-source language model that understands and generates audio. Mistral introduced a voice mode for chatting that uses Voxtral, and projects, which allows grouping chats and files. In September 2025, Le Chat introduced the capability to remember previous conversations. In May 2026, Mistral AI announced the rebrand from Le Chat to Mistral Vibe and new features were introduced at the same time.

  Read more →
• 

  CN2 algorithm

  The CN2 induction algorithm is a learning algorithm for rule induction. It is designed to work even when the training data is imperfect. It is based on ideas from the AQ algorithm and the ID3 algorithm. As a consequence it creates a rule set like that created by AQ but is able to handle noisy data like ID3. == Description of algorithm == The algorithm must be given a set of examples, TrainingSet, which have already been classified in order to generate a list of classification rules. A set of conditions, SimpleConditionSet, which can be applied, alone or in combination, to any set of examples is predefined to be used for the classification. routine CN2(TrainingSet) let the ClassificationRuleList be empty repeat let the BestConditionExpression be Find_BestConditionExpression(TrainingSet) if the BestConditionExpression is not nil then let the TrainingSubset be the examples covered by the BestConditionExpression remove from the TrainingSet the examples in the TrainingSubset let the MostCommonClass be the most common class of examples in the TrainingSubset append to the ClassificationRuleList the rule 'if ' the BestConditionExpression ' then the class is ' the MostCommonClass until the TrainingSet is empty or the BestConditionExpression is nil return the ClassificationRuleList routine Find_BestConditionExpression(TrainingSet) let the ConditionalExpressionSet be empty let the BestConditionExpression be nil repeat let the TrialConditionalExpressionSet be the set of conditional expressions, {x and y where x belongs to the ConditionalExpressionSet and y belongs to the SimpleConditionSet}. remove all formulae in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet that are either in the ConditionalExpressionSet (i.e., the unspecialized ones) or null (e.g., big = y and big = n) for every expression, F, in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet if F is statistically significant and F is better than the BestConditionExpression by user-defined criteria when tested on the TrainingSet then replace the current value of the BestConditionExpression by F while the number of expressions in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet > user-defined maximum remove the worst expression from the TrialConditionalExpressionSet let the ConditionalExpressionSet be the TrialConditionalExpressionSet until the ConditionalExpressionSet is empty return the BestConditionExpression

  Read more →
• 

  Inductive logic programming

  Inductive logic programming (ILP) is a subfield of symbolic artificial intelligence which uses logic programming as a uniform representation for examples, background knowledge and hypotheses. The term "inductive" here refers to philosophical (i.e. suggesting a theory to explain observed facts) rather than mathematical (i.e. proving a property for all members of a well-ordered set) induction. Given an encoding of the known background knowledge and a set of examples represented as a logical database of facts, an ILP system will derive a hypothesised logic program which entails all the positive and none of the negative examples. Schema: positive examples + negative examples + background knowledge ⇒ hypothesis. Bioinformatics and drug design have been highlighted as a principal application area of inductive logic programming techniques. == History == Building on earlier work on Inductive inference, Gordon Plotkin was the first to formalise induction in a clausal setting around 1970, adopting an approach of generalising from examples. In 1981, Ehud Shapiro introduced several ideas that would shape the field in his new approach of model inference, an algorithm employing refinement and backtracing to search for a complete axiomatisation of given examples. His first implementation was the Model Inference System in 1981: a Prolog program that inductively inferred Horn clause logic programs from positive and negative examples. The term Inductive Logic Programming was first introduced in a paper by Stephen Muggleton in 1990, defined as the intersection of machine learning and logic programming. Muggleton and Wray Buntine introduced predicate invention and inverse resolution in 1988. Several inductive logic programming systems that proved influential appeared in the early 1990s. FOIL, introduced by Ross Quinlan in 1990 was based on upgrading propositional learning algorithms AQ and ID3. Golem, introduced by Muggleton and Feng in 1990, went back to a restricted form of Plotkin's least generalisation algorithm. The Progol system, introduced by Muggleton in 1995, first implemented inverse entailment, and inspired many later systems. Aleph, a descendant of Progol introduced by Ashwin Srinivasan in 2001, is still one of the most widely used systems as of 2022. At around the same time, the first practical applications emerged, particularly in bioinformatics, where by 2000 inductive logic programming had been successfully applied to drug design, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity prediction, and elucidation of the structure and function of proteins. Unlike the focus on automatic programming inherent in the early work, these fields used inductive logic programming techniques from a viewpoint of relational data mining. The success of those initial applications and the lack of progress in recovering larger traditional logic programs shaped the focus of the field. Recently, classical tasks from automated programming have moved back into focus, as the introduction of meta-interpretative learning makes predicate invention and learning recursive programs more feasible. This technique was pioneered with the Metagol system introduced by Muggleton, Dianhuan Lin, Niels Pahlavi and Alireza Tamaddoni-Nezhad in 2014. This allows ILP systems to work with fewer examples, and brought successes in learning string transformation programs, answer set grammars and general algorithms. == Setting == Inductive logic programming has adopted several different learning settings, the most common of which are learning from entailment and learning from interpretations. In both cases, the input is provided in the form of background knowledge B, a logical theory (commonly in the form of clauses used in logic programming), as well as positive and negative examples, denoted E + {\textstyle E^{+}} and E − {\textstyle E^{-}} respectively. The output is given as a hypothesis H, itself a logical theory that typically consists of one or more clauses. The two settings differ in the format of examples presented. === Learning from entailment === As of 2022, learning from entailment is by far the most popular setting for inductive logic programming. In this setting, the positive and negative examples are given as finite sets E + {\textstyle E^{+}} and E − {\textstyle E^{-}} of positive and negated ground literals, respectively. A correct hypothesis H is a set of clauses satisfying the following requirements, where the turnstile symbol ⊨ {\displaystyle \models } stands for logical entailment: Completeness: B ∪ H ⊨ E + Consistency: B ∪ H ∪ E − ⊭ false {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{llll}{\text{Completeness:}}&B\cup H&\models &E^{+}\\{\text{Consistency: }}&B\cup H\cup E^{-}&\not \models &{\textit {false}}\end{array}}} Completeness requires any generated hypothesis H to explain all positive examples E + {\textstyle E^{+}} , and consistency forbids generation of any hypothesis H that is inconsistent with the negative examples E − {\textstyle E^{-}} , both given the background knowledge B. In Muggleton's setting of concept learning, "completeness" is referred to as "sufficiency", and "consistency" as "strong consistency". Two further conditions are added: "Necessity", which postulates that B does not entail E + {\textstyle E^{+}} , does not impose a restriction on H, but forbids any generation of a hypothesis as long as the positive facts are explainable without it. "Weak consistency", which states that no contradiction can be derived from B ∧ H {\textstyle B\land H} , forbids generation of any hypothesis H that contradicts the background knowledge B. Weak consistency is implied by strong consistency; if no negative examples are given, both requirements coincide. Weak consistency is particularly important in the case of noisy data, where completeness and strong consistency cannot be guaranteed. === Learning from interpretations === In learning from interpretations, the positive and negative examples are given as a set of complete or partial Herbrand structures, each of which are themselves a finite set of ground literals. Such a structure e is said to be a model of the set of clauses B ∪ H {\textstyle B\cup H} if for any substitution θ {\textstyle \theta } and any clause h e a d ← b o d y {\textstyle \mathrm {head} \leftarrow \mathrm {body} } in B ∪ H {\textstyle B\cup H} such that b o d y θ ⊆ e {\textstyle \mathrm {body} \theta \subseteq e} , h e a d θ ⊆ e {\displaystyle \mathrm {head} \theta \subseteq e} also holds. The goal is then to output a hypothesis that is complete, meaning every positive example is a model of B ∪ H {\textstyle B\cup H} , and consistent, meaning that no negative example is a model of B ∪ H {\textstyle B\cup H} . == Approaches to ILP == An inductive logic programming system is a program that takes as an input logic theories B , E + , E − {\displaystyle B,E^{+},E^{-}} and outputs a correct hypothesis H with respect to theories B , E + , E − {\displaystyle B,E^{+},E^{-}} . A system is complete if and only if for any input logic theories B , E + , E − {\displaystyle B,E^{+},E^{-}} any correct hypothesis H with respect to these input theories can be found with its hypothesis search procedure. Inductive logic programming systems can be roughly divided into two classes, search-based and meta-interpretative systems. Search-based systems exploit that the space of possible clauses forms a complete lattice under the subsumption relation, where one clause C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} subsumes another clause C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} if there is a substitution θ {\textstyle \theta } such that C 1 θ {\textstyle C_{1}\theta } , the result of applying θ {\textstyle \theta } to C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} , is a subset of C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} . This lattice can be traversed either bottom-up or top-down. === Bottom-up search === Bottom-up methods to search the subsumption lattice have been investigated since Plotkin's first work on formalising induction in clausal logic in 1970. Techniques used include least general generalisation, based on anti-unification, and inverse resolution, based on inverting the resolution inference rule. ==== Least general generalisation ==== A least general generalisation algorithm takes as input two clauses C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} and outputs the least general generalisation of C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} , that is, a clause C {\textstyle C} that subsumes C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} , and that is subsumed by every other clause that subsumes C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} . The least general generalisation can be computed by first computing all selections from C 1 {\textstyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\textstyle C_{2}} , which are pairs of literals ( L , M ) ∈ ( C 1 × C 2 ) {\displaystyle (L,M)\in (C_{1}\times C_{2})} sharing the same predicate symbol and negated/unnegated status. Then, the least general generalisation is obtained as the disjunction of the least general generalisations of the indi

  Read more →
• 

  L-1 Identity Solutions

  L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. was an American biometric technology company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, specializing in identity management products and services including facial recognition systems, fingerprint readers, and secure credentialing solutions for governments and commercial enterprises. The company's shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ID." == History == L-1 Identity Solutions was formed on August 29, 2006, from a merger of Viisage Technology, Inc. and Identix Incorporated. Prior to the Safran acquisition, L-1 divested its Intelligence Services Group (ISG) comprising SpecTal LLC, Advanced Concepts Inc., and McClendon LLC to BAE Systems, Inc. for approximately $297 million. The transaction, initially announced in September 2010, closed on February 15, 2011, with more than 1,000 ISG employees joining BAE Systems' Intelligence & Security sector. It specializes in selling face recognition systems, electronic passports, such as Fly Clear, and other biometric technology to governments such as the United States and Saudi Arabia. It also licenses technology to other companies internationally, including China. On July 26, 2011, Safran (NYSE Euronext Paris: SAF) acquired L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. for a total cash amount of USD 1.09 billion. L-1 was part of Morpho's MorphoTrust department which rebranded to Idemia in 2017. Bioscrypt is a biometrics research, development and manufacturing company purchased by L-1 Identity Solutions. It provides fingerprint IP readers for physical access control systems, Facial recognition system readers for contactless access control authentication and OEM fingerprint modules for embedded applications. According to IMS Research, Bioscrypt has been the world market leader in biometric access control for enterprises (since 2006) with a worldwide market share of over 13%. In 2011, Bioscrypt was sold to Safran Morpho.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Mode

  AI Mode is a search feature used within Google Search. In March 2025, Google introduced an experimental "AI Mode" within its search platform, enabling users to input complex, multi-part queries and receive comprehensive, AI-generated responses. This feature uses Google's Gemini model, which enhances the system's reasoning capabilities and supports multimodal inputs, including text, images, and voice. Users need to be signed in to be able to use the image generation features. Initially, AI Mode was available to Google One AI Premium subscribers in the United States, who could access it through the Search Labs platform. This phased rollout allowed Google to gather user feedback and refine the feature before a broader release.

  Read more →
• 

  Parity benchmark

  Parity problems are widely used as benchmark problems in genetic programming but inherited from the artificial neural network community. Parity is calculated by summing all the binary inputs and reporting if the sum is odd or even. This is considered difficult because: a very simple artificial neural network cannot solve it, and all inputs need to be considered and a change to any one of them changes the answer.

  Read more →
• 

  Cartesian genetic programming

  Cartesian genetic programming is a form of genetic programming that uses a graph representation to encode computer programs. It grew from a method of evolving digital circuits developed by Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson in 1997. The term ‘Cartesian genetic programming’ first appeared in 1999 and was proposed as a general form of genetic programming in 2000. It is called ‘Cartesian’ because it represents a program using a two-dimensional grid of nodes. Miller's keynote explains how CGP works. He edited a book entitled Cartesian Genetic Programming, published in 2011 by Springer. The open source project dCGP implements a differentiable version of CGP developed at the European Space Agency by Dario Izzo, Francesco Biscani and Alessio Mereta able to approach symbolic regression tasks, to find solution to differential equations, find prime integrals of dynamical systems, represent variable topology artificial neural networks and more.

  Read more →
• 

  Preference regression

  Preference regression is a statistical technique used by marketers to determine consumers’ preferred core benefits. It usually supplements product positioning techniques like multi dimensional scaling or factor analysis and is used to create ideal vectors on perceptual maps. == Application == Starting with raw data from surveys, researchers apply positioning techniques to determine important dimensions and plot the position of competing products on these dimensions. Next they regress the survey data against the dimensions. The independent variables are the data collected in the survey. The dependent variable is the preference datum. Like all regression methods, the computer fits weights to best predict data. The resultant regression line is referred to as an ideal vector because the slope of the vector is the ratio of the preferences for the two dimensions. If all the data is used in the regression, the program will derive a single equation and hence a single ideal vector. This tends to be a blunt instrument so researchers refine the process with cluster analysis. This creates clusters that reflect market segments. Separate preference regressions are then done on the data within each segment. This provides an ideal vector for each segment. == Alternative methods == Self-stated importance method is an alternative method in which direct survey data is used to determine the weightings rather than statistical imputations. A third method is conjoint analysis in which an additive method is used.

  Read more →
• 

  The AI Con

  The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Aleph (ILP)

  Aleph (A Learning Engine for Proposing Hypotheses) is an inductive logic programming system introduced by Ashwin Srinivasan in 2001. As of 2022 it is still one of the most widely used inductive logic programming systems. It is based on the earlier system Progol. == Learning task == The input to Aleph is background knowledge, specified as a logic program, a language bias in the form of mode declarations, as well as positive and negative examples specified as ground facts. As output it returns a logic program which, together with the background knowledge, entails all of the positive examples and none of the negative examples. == Basic algorithm == Starting with an empty hypothesis, Aleph proceeds as follows: It chooses a positive example to generalise; if none are left, it aborts and outputs the current hypothesis. Then it constructs the bottom clause, that is, the most specific clause that is allowed by the mode declarations and covers the example. It then searches for a generalisation of the bottom clause that scores better on the chosen metric. It then adds the new clause to the hypothesis program and removes all examples that are covered by the new clause. == Search algorithm == Aleph searches for clauses in a top-down manner, using the bottom clause constructed in the preceding step to bound the search from below. It searches the refinement graph in a breadth-first manner, with tunable parameters to bound the maximal clause size and proof depth. It scores each clause using one of 13 different evaluation metrics, as chosen in advance by the user.

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-entropy

  In information theory, the cross-entropy between two probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} , over the same underlying set of events, measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set when the coding scheme used for the set is optimized for an estimated probability distribution q {\displaystyle q} , rather than the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} . == Definition == The cross-entropy of the distribution q {\displaystyle q} relative to a distribution p {\displaystyle p} over a given set is defined as follows: H ( p , q ) = − E p ⁡ [ log ⁡ q ] , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=-\operatorname {E} _{p}[\log q],} where E p ⁡ [ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{p}[\cdot ]} is the expected value operator with respect to the distribution p {\displaystyle p} . The definition may be formulated using the Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , divergence of p {\displaystyle p} from q {\displaystyle q} (also known as the relative entropy of p {\displaystyle p} with respect to q {\displaystyle q} ). H ( p , q ) = H ( p ) + D K L ( p ∥ q ) , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=H(p)+D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q),} where H ( p ) {\displaystyle H(p)} is the entropy of p {\displaystyle p} . For discrete probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with the same support X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , this means The situation for continuous distributions is analogous. We have to assume that p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are absolutely continuous with respect to some reference measure r {\displaystyle r} (usually r {\displaystyle r} is a Lebesgue measure on a Borel σ-algebra). Let P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} be probability density functions of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with respect to r {\displaystyle r} . Then − ∫ X P ( x ) log ⁡ Q ( x ) d x = E p ⁡ [ − log ⁡ Q ] , {\displaystyle -\int _{\mathcal {X}}P(x)\,\log Q(x)\,\mathrm {d} x=\operatorname {E} _{p}[-\log Q],} and therefore NB: The notation H ( p , q ) {\displaystyle H(p,q)} is also used for a different concept, the joint entropy of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} . == Motivation == In information theory, the Kraft–McMillan theorem establishes that any directly decodable coding scheme for coding a message to identify one value x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of a set of possibilities { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} can be seen as representing an implicit probability distribution q ( x i ) = ( 1 2 ) ℓ i {\displaystyle q(x_{i})=\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)^{\ell _{i}}} over { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} , where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is the length of the code for x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} in bits. Therefore, cross-entropy can be interpreted as the expected message-length per datum when a wrong distribution q {\displaystyle q} is assumed while the data actually follows a distribution p {\displaystyle p} . That is why the expectation is taken over the true probability distribution p {\displaystyle p} and not q . {\displaystyle q.} Indeed the expected message-length under the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} is E p ⁡ [ ℓ ] = − E p ⁡ [ ln ⁡ q ( x ) ln ⁡ ( 2 ) ] = − E p ⁡ [ log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) ] = − ∑ x i p ( x i ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) = − ∑ x p ( x ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) = H ( p , q ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {E} _{p}[\ell ]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[{\frac {\ln {q(x)}}{\ln(2)}}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[\log _{2}{q(x)}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x_{i}}p(x_{i})\,\log _{2}q(x_{i})\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x}p(x)\,\log _{2}q(x)=H(p,q).\end{aligned}}} == Estimation == There are many situations where cross-entropy needs to be measured but the distribution of p {\displaystyle p} is unknown. An example is language modeling, where a model is created based on a training set T {\displaystyle T} , and then its cross-entropy is measured on a test set to assess how accurate the model is in predicting the test data. In this example, p {\displaystyle p} is the true distribution of words in any corpus, and q {\displaystyle q} is the distribution of words as predicted by the model. Since the true distribution is unknown, cross-entropy cannot be directly calculated. In these cases, an estimate of cross-entropy is calculated using the following formula: H ( T , q ) = − ∑ i = 1 N 1 N log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) {\displaystyle H(T,q)=-\sum _{i=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}\log _{2}q(x_{i})} where N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the test set, and q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(x)} is the probability of event x {\displaystyle x} estimated from the training set. In other words, q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} is the probability estimate of the model that the i-th word of the text is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . The sum is averaged over the N {\displaystyle N} words of the test. This is a Monte Carlo estimate of the true cross-entropy, where the test set is treated as samples from p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} . == Relation to maximum likelihood == The cross entropy arises in classification problems when introducing a logarithm in the guise of the log-likelihood function. This section concerns the estimation of the probabilities of different discrete outcomes. To this end, denote a parametrized family of distributions by q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } subject to the optimization effort. Consider a given finite sequence of N {\displaystyle N} values x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from a training set, obtained from conditionally independent sampling. The likelihood assigned to any considered parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the model is then given by the product over all probabilities q θ ( X = x i ) {\displaystyle q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})} . Repeated occurrences are possible, leading to equal factors in the product. If the count of occurrences of the value equal to x {\displaystyle x} is denoted by # x {\displaystyle \#x} , then the frequency of that value equals # x / N {\displaystyle \#x/N} . If p ( X = x ) {\displaystyle p(X=x)} is the underlying probability distribution, for large N {\displaystyle N} we expect p ( X = x ) ≈ # x / N {\displaystyle p(X=x)\approx \#x/N} , by the law of large numbers. Writing our likelihood function as the product of observations from the distribution q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} : L ( θ ; x ) = ∏ i q θ ( X = x i ) = ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) # x ≈ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) = exp ⁡ log ⁡ [ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) ] = exp ⁡ ( ∑ x N ⋅ p ( X = x ) log ⁡ q θ ( X = x ) ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })&=\prod _{i}q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})=\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{\#x}\\&\approx \prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}=\exp \log \left[\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}\right]\\&=\exp \left(\sum _{x}N\cdot p(X=x)\log q_{\theta }(X=x)^{}\right),\end{aligned}}} where we have used the calculation rules for the logarithm in the final line. Notice how the exponent contains a − H ( p , q θ ) {\displaystyle -H(p,q_{\theta })} term. Taking the logarithm of both sides gives: log ⁡ L ( θ ; x ) = − N ⋅ H ( p , q θ ) . {\displaystyle \log {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })=-N\cdot H(p,q_{\theta }).} Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by this final step. Similarly, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by the factor of N {\displaystyle N} . So we observe that the likelihood maximization amounts to minimization of the cross-entropy. == Cross-entropy minimization == Cross-entropy minimization is frequently used in optimization and rare-event probability estimation. When comparing a distribution q {\displaystyle q} against a fixed reference distribution p {\displaystyle p} , cross-entropy and KL divergence are identical up to an additive constant (since p {\displaystyle p} is fixed): According to the Gibbs' inequality, both take on their minimal values when p = q {\displaystyle p=q} , which is 0 {\displaystyle 0} for KL divergence, and H ( p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (p)} for cross-entropy. In the engineering literature, the principle of minimizing KL divergence (Kullback's "Principle of Minimum Discrimination Information") is often called the Principle of Minimum Cross-Entropy (MCE), or Minxent. However, as discussed in the article Kullback–Leibler divergence, sometimes the distribution q {\displaystyle q} is the fixed prior reference distribution, and the distribution p {\displaystyle p} is optimized to be as close to q {\displaystyle q} as possible, subject to some constraint. In this case the two minimizations are not equivalent. This has led to some ambiguity in the literature, with some authors attempting to resolve the inconsistency by restating cross-entropy to be D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , rather than H (

  Read more →