Trying to pick the best AI text-to-image tool? An AI text-to-image tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI text-to-image tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Thinkfree Office
Thinkfree Office is a web-based commercial office productivity suite developed by South Korea-based Thinkfree Inc. It includes Word (a word processor), Spreadsheet (a spreadsheet) and Presentation (a presentation program). They are compatible with Microsoft Office's Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. It also features collaborative editing. The product is hosted on the client's server. == Supported file formats == Thinkfree Office supports ISO/IEC international standard ISO/IEC 26300 Open Document Format for Office Applications (odf, odt, odp, ods, odg). It also supports Microsoft's XML formats (docx, pptx, xlsx) and Microsoft's legacy binary formats (doc, ppt, xls). == Naming == The software was previously marketed under different names, such as Thinkfree Server, Thinkfree Online, Hancom Office Online, and Hancom Office Web. Eventually, the brand was consolidated under the name Thinkfree Office. == History == In June 2000, Thinkfree Inc. released Thinkfree Office, based in Silicon Valley, California. It is recognized as the world's first online office editor (predating Google Docs and Microsoft 365) and attracted significant media coverage, including reports on CNN. In 2001, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer highlighted Thinkfree as a significant competitor in a magazine interview, considering it a potential threat to his company, second only to Linux. In November 2003, Hancom, a South Korean office software company, signed a memorandum of understanding and subsequently acquired Thinkfree. In January 2004, Thinkfree expanded into other foreign markets. Subsidiary Haansoft USA, Inc. was created in San Jose, California to begin formal commercial operations in the US market. At the same time, a partnership was established with Riverdeep with the purpose of improving marketshare. In February 2004, expansion into the Japanese market began. A commercial agency agreement was signed with PSI in Shinjuku, Japan, which allowed for localized distribution. In addition, a global agreement was entered into with Yamada Denki, one of the three main computer distributors in Japan, for a total of 180,000 units. In May 2006, Thinkfree Office received the "Product of the Year" award at the Well-Connected Awards, USA. In January 2009, Thinkfree Mobile was launched at CES 2009 in Las Vegas. In April 2009, Thinkfree Live, Korea's first web office service, was launched. In June 2018, a partnership was formed with Amazon Web Services to integrate Thinkfree Office into WorkDocs, an in-house office suite. In October 2023, Hancom split its online office business unit as "Thinkfree Inc.".
ARKA descriptors in QSAR
In computational chemistry and cheminformatics, ARKA descriptors in QSAR are a class of molecular descriptors used in quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling (or related approaches such as QSPR and QSTR), a computational method for predicting the biological activity or toxicity of chemical compounds based on their molecular structure. Molecular descriptors are numerical values that summarize information about a molecule's structure, topology, geometry, or physicochemical properties in a form suitable for machine learning or statistical modeling. ARKA (Arithmetic Residuals in K-Groups Analysis) descriptors differ from traditional descriptors by encoding atomic-level information through recursive autoregression techniques, which aim to capture subtle structural patterns and improve predictive accuracy. They are designed to be both interpretable and well-suited to modeling nonlinear relationships in QSAR studies. == Comparisons == While QSAR is essentially a similarity-based approach, the occurrence of activity/property cliffs may greatly reduce the predictive accuracy of the developed models. The novel Arithmetic Residuals in K-groups Analysis (ARKA) approach is a supervised dimensionality reduction technique developed by the DTC Laboratory, Jadavpur University that can easily identify activity cliffs in a data set. Activity cliffs are similar in their structures but differ considerably in their activity. The basic idea of the ARKA descriptors is to group the conventional QSAR descriptors based on a predefined criterion and then assign weightage to each descriptor in each group. ARKA descriptors have also been used to develop classification-based and regression-based QSAR models with acceptable quality statistics. The ARKA descriptors have been used for the identification of activity cliffs in QSAR studies and/or model development by multiple researchers. A tutorial presentation on the ARKA descriptors is available. Recently a multi-class ARKA framework has been proposed for improved q-RASAR model generation.
Discrete diffusion model
In machine learning, discrete diffusion models are a class of diffusion models, which themselves are a class of latent variable generative models. Each discrete diffusion model consists of two major components: the forward jump diffusion process, and the reverse jump diffusion process. The goal of diffusion modeling is, given a given dataset and a forward process, to learn a model for the reverse process, such that the reverse process can generate new elements that are distributed similarly as the original dataset. A trained discrete diffusion model can be sampled in many ways, which trades off computational efficiency and sample quality. In general, higher quality data can be obtained, but at the price of higher computational cost. In standard diffusion modeling, the diffusion process takes place over a state space that is continuous space of R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , but over a discrete set S {\displaystyle S} . A discrete set is simply a set where one cannot speak of "infinitesimally close" points. Points can be more or less separated from each other, but the separation is always a finite number. This in particular means the standard framework of continuous diffusion does not apply, since it uses gaussian noise, which is continuous. Nevertheless, an analogous theory can be produced. Discrete diffusion is usually used for language modeling. In practice, the state space S {\displaystyle S} is not only discrete, but finite, so this is what we will assume from now on. == Continuous time Markov process == In the case of continuous state space, during the forward discrete diffusion process, at each step t → t + d t {\displaystyle t\to t+dt} , we mix in an infinitesimal amount of gaussian noise d x t = − 1 2 β ( t ) x t d t + β ( t ) d W t {\displaystyle dx_{t}=-{\frac {1}{2}}\beta (t)x_{t}dt+{\sqrt {\beta (t)}}dW_{t}} . This changes the probability density function, by first a convolution with the density of a gaussian, followed by a scaling. In the case of discrete state space, the gaussian noise must be replaced by a noise that takes values over a finite set. For example, if the noise is the uniform distribution over S {\displaystyle S} , then the probability distribution at time t + d t {\displaystyle t+dt} satisfies q t + d t ( x ) = ( 1 − d t ) q t ( x ) + d t ( 1 | S | ∑ y ∈ S q t ( y ) ) {\displaystyle q_{t+dt}(x)=(1-dt)q_{t}(x)+dt\left({\frac {1}{|S|}}\sum _{y\in S}q_{t}(y)\right)} More succinctly, ∂ t q t ( x ) = − ( 1 − 1 | S | ) q t ( x ) + ∑ y ∈ S , y ≠ x 1 | S | q t ( y ) {\displaystyle \partial _{t}q_{t}(x)=-\left(1-{\frac {1}{|S|}}\right)q_{t}(x)+\sum _{y\in S,y\neq x}{\frac {1}{|S|}}q_{t}(y)} In general, we do not need to convolve with a uniformly distributed noise, but with an arbitrary noise process. That is, we use an arbitrary matrix Q t {\displaystyle Q_{t}} such that ∂ t q t ( y ) = ∑ x ∈ S Q t ( y , x ) q t ( x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{t}q_{t}(y)=\sum _{x\in S}Q_{t}(y,x)q_{t}(x)} where Q t {\displaystyle Q_{t}} is called the rate matrix. Any matrix may be used as a rate matrix if it has non-negative off-diagonals, and each column sums to 0: Q t ( y , x ) ≥ 0 ∀ y ≠ x , ∑ y ∈ S Q t ( y , x ) = 0 ∀ x {\displaystyle Q_{t}(y,x)\geq 0\quad \forall y\neq x,\quad \sum _{y\in S}Q_{t}(y,x)=0\quad \forall x} A continuous time Markov chain (CTMC) is defined by a continuous function Q {\displaystyle Q} that maps any time t ∈ [ 0 , T ) {\displaystyle t\in [0,T)} to a rate matrix Q t {\displaystyle Q_{t}} . Given the function Q {\displaystyle Q} , time-evolution under the CTMC is done as follows: Given state x t {\displaystyle x_{t}} at time t {\displaystyle t} , and given an infinitesimal d t {\displaystyle dt} , the state at t + d t {\displaystyle t+dt} is x t + d t {\displaystyle x_{t+dt}} , such that Pr ( x t + d t | x t ) = { 1 + Q t ( x t + d t , x t ) d t if x t + d t = x t Q t ( x t + d t , x t ) d t else {\displaystyle \Pr(x_{t+dt}|x_{t})={\begin{cases}1+Q_{t}(x_{t+dt},x_{t})dt&{\text{if }}x_{t+dt}=x_{t}\\Q_{t}(x_{t+dt},x_{t})dt&{\text{else}}\end{cases}}} This implies that the probability distribution function evolves according to ∂ t q t ( y ) = ∑ x ∈ S Q t ( y , x ) q t ( x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{t}q_{t}(y)=\sum _{x\in S}Q_{t}(y,x)q_{t}(x)} which is what we previously specified. === Backward process === Similarly to the case of continuous diffusion, in discrete diffusion, there exists a backward diffusion process Q ¯ t {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}_{t}} : s ( x , t ) y := q t ( y ) q t ( x ) , Q ¯ t ( y , x ) := { s ( x , t ) y Q t ( x , y ) if y ≠ x − ∑ y : y ≠ x Q ¯ t ( y , x ) if y = x {\displaystyle s(x,t)_{y}:={\frac {q_{t}(y)}{q_{t}(x)}},\quad {\bar {Q}}_{t}(y,x):={\begin{cases}s(x,t)_{y}Q_{t}(x,y)&{\text{if }}y\neq x\\-\sum _{y:y\neq x}{\bar {Q}}_{t}(y,x)&{\text{if }}y=x\end{cases}}} where s ( x , t ) y {\displaystyle s(x,t)_{y}} should be interpreted as the discrete score or concrete score, since, abusing notation a bit, the score function is ∇ ln ρ t ( x ) = 1 d x ( ρ t ( x + d x ) ρ t ( x ) − 1 ) {\displaystyle \nabla \ln \rho _{t}(x)={\frac {1}{dx}}\left({\frac {\rho _{t}(x+dx)}{\rho _{t}(x)}}-1\right)} . If we picture the distribution q t {\displaystyle q_{t}} as a bunch of point-masses, one per state x ∈ S {\displaystyle x\in S} , then the forward diffusion from time t {\displaystyle t} to t + d t {\displaystyle t+dt} is performed by removing Q t ( x , y ) q t ( y ) d t {\displaystyle Q_{t}(x,y)q_{t}(y)dt} from the mass at y {\displaystyle y} and moving it to the mass at x {\displaystyle x} , for each pair x ≠ y {\displaystyle x\neq y} . Thus, the process is reversed in detail by the CTMC defined by Q ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}} , since Q ¯ t ( y , x ) q t ( x ) = Q t ( x , y ) q t ( y ) {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}_{t}(y,x)q_{t}(x)=Q_{t}(x,y)q_{t}(y)} . Given Q ¯ t {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}_{t}} , if we have a way to sample from q t {\displaystyle q_{t}} , then we can sample from q t − d t {\displaystyle q_{t-dt}} by first sampling x t ∼ q t {\displaystyle x_{t}\sim q_{t}} , then sampling x t − d t {\displaystyle x_{t-dt}} according to Pr ( x t − d t | x t ) = { 1 + Q ¯ t ( x t − d t , x t ) d t if x t − d t = x t Q ¯ t ( x t − d t , x t ) d t else {\displaystyle \Pr(x_{t-dt}|x_{t})={\begin{cases}1+{\bar {Q}}_{t}(x_{t-dt},x_{t})dt&{\text{if }}x_{t-dt}=x_{t}\\{\bar {Q}}_{t}(x_{t-dt},x_{t})dt&{\text{else}}\end{cases}}} === Overall plan of score-matching discrete diffusion modeling === Similar to score-matching continuous diffusion, score-matching discrete diffusion is a method to sample an initial distribution. If we have a certain function s θ {\displaystyle s_{\theta }} that approximates the true score function s θ ( x , t ) y ≈ s ( x , t ) y {\displaystyle s_{\theta }(x,t)_{y}\approx s(x,t)_{y}} , then it allows a corresponding Q ¯ θ {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}^{\theta }} to be defined in the same way. If we also have a base distribution q base {\displaystyle q_{\text{base}}} such that it is easy to sample from, and approximately equal to the true terminal distribution q base ≈ q T {\displaystyle q_{\text{base}}\approx q_{T}} , then we can perform the backward CTMC with Q ¯ θ {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}^{\theta }} and q T θ := q terminal {\displaystyle q_{T}^{\theta }:=q_{\text{terminal}}} . When both approximations are good, the backward CTMC would give q 0 θ ≈ q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}^{\theta }\approx q_{0}} . This is the idea of score-matching discrete diffusion modeling. If q data {\displaystyle q_{\text{data}}} is sharp, in the sense that for some x , x ′ {\displaystyle x,x'} , we have q data ( x ) ≫ q data ( x ′ ) {\displaystyle q_{\text{data}}(x)\gg q_{\text{data}}(x')} , then the score function would diverge as 1 / t {\displaystyle 1/t} at the t → 0 {\displaystyle t\to 0} limit. To avoid this in practice, it is common to use early stopping, which is to stop the backward process at some time δ > 0 {\displaystyle \delta >0} , and sample from q δ θ {\displaystyle q_{\delta }^{\theta }} instead of q 0 θ {\displaystyle q_{0}^{\theta }} . === Tractable forward processes === The theory of CTMC works for any continuous choice of rate matrices Q {\displaystyle Q} . However, most choices are computationally expensive and cannot be used in practice. In the case of continuous diffusion, the gaussian noise is used for the simple reason that the sum of any number of gaussians is still a gaussian. This allows one to sample any x t ∼ ρ t {\displaystyle x_{t}\sim \rho _{t}} by sampling a single x 0 ∼ ρ 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}\sim \rho _{0}} , followed by a single gaussian noise z ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle z\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} , and let x t = α ¯ t x 0 + σ t z {\displaystyle x_{t}={\sqrt {{\bar {\alpha }}_{t}}}x_{0}+\sigma _{t}z} , without needing any x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} for any 0 < s < t {\displaystyle 0 State–action–reward–state–action (SARSA) is an algorithm for learning a Markov decision process policy, used in the reinforcement learning area of machine learning. It was proposed by Rummery and Niranjan in a technical note with the name "Modified Connectionist Q-Learning" (MCQ-L). The alternative name SARSA, proposed by Rich Sutton, was only mentioned as a footnote. This name reflects the fact that the main function for updating the Q-value depends on the current state of the agent "S1", the action the agent chooses "A1", the reward "R2" the agent gets for choosing this action, the state "S2" that the agent enters after taking that action, and finally the next action "A2" the agent chooses in its new state. The acronym for the quintuple (St, At, Rt+1, St+1, At+1) is SARSA. Some authors use a slightly different convention and write the quintuple (St, At, Rt, St+1, At+1), depending on which time step the reward is formally assigned. The rest of the article uses the former convention. == Algorithm == Q new ( S t , A t ) ← ( 1 − α ) Q ( S t , A t ) + α [ R t + 1 + γ Q ( S t + 1 , A t + 1 ) ] {\displaystyle Q^{\textrm {new}}(S_{t},A_{t})\leftarrow (1-\alpha )Q(S_{t},A_{t})+\alpha \,[R_{t+1}+\gamma \,Q(S_{t+1},A_{t+1})]} A SARSA agent interacts with the environment and updates the policy based on actions taken, hence this is known as an on-policy learning algorithm. The Q value for a state-action is updated by an error, adjusted by the learning rate α. Q values represent the possible reward received in the next time step for taking action a in state s, plus the discounted future reward received from the next state-action observation. Watkin's Q-learning updates an estimate of the optimal state-action value function Q ∗ {\displaystyle Q^{}} based on the maximum reward of available actions. While SARSA learns the Q values associated with taking the policy it follows itself, Watkin's Q-learning learns the Q values associated with taking the optimal policy while following an exploration/exploitation policy. Some optimizations of Watkin's Q-learning may be applied to SARSA. == Hyperparameters == === Learning rate (alpha) === The learning rate determines to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information. A factor of 0 will make the agent not learn anything, while a factor of 1 would make the agent consider only the most recent information. === Discount factor (gamma) === The discount factor determines the importance of future rewards. A discount factor of 0 makes the agent "opportunistic", or "myopic", e.g., by only considering current rewards, while a factor approaching 1 will make it strive for a long-term high reward. If the discount factor meets or exceeds 1, the Q {\displaystyle Q} values may diverge. === Initial conditions (Q(S0, A0)) === Since SARSA is an iterative algorithm, it implicitly assumes an initial condition before the first update occurs. A high (infinite) initial value, also known as "optimistic initial conditions", can encourage exploration: no matter what action takes place, the update rule causes it to have higher values than the other alternative, thus increasing their choice probability. In 2013 it was suggested that the first reward r {\displaystyle r} could be used to reset the initial conditions. According to this idea, the first time an action is taken the reward is used to set the value of Q {\displaystyle Q} . This allows immediate learning in case of fixed deterministic rewards. This resetting-of-initial-conditions (RIC) approach seems to be consistent with human behavior in repeated binary choice experiments. Evaluation of a binary classifier typically assigns a numerical value, or values, to a classifier that represent its accuracy. An example is error rate, which measures how frequently the classifier makes a mistake. There are many metrics that can be used; different fields have different preferences. For example, in medicine sensitivity and specificity are often used, while in computer science precision and recall are preferred. An important distinction is between metrics that are independent of the prevalence or skew (how often each class occurs in the population), and metrics that depend on the prevalence – both types are useful, but they have very different properties. Often, evaluation is used to compare two methods of classification, so that one can be adopted and the other discarded. Such comparisons are more directly achieved by a form of evaluation that results in a single unitary metric rather than a pair of metrics. == Contingency table == Given a data set, a classification (the output of a classifier on that set) gives two numbers: the number of positives and the number of negatives, which add up to the total size of the set. To evaluate a classifier, one compares its output to another reference classification – ideally a perfect classification, but in practice the output of another gold standard test – and cross tabulates the data into a 2×2 contingency table, comparing the two classifications. One then evaluates the classifier relative to the gold standard by computing summary statistics of these 4 numbers. Generally these statistics will be scale invariant (scaling all the numbers by the same factor does not change the output), to make them independent of population size, which is achieved by using ratios of homogeneous functions, most simply homogeneous linear or homogeneous quadratic functions. Say we test some people for the presence of a disease. Some of these people have the disease, and our test correctly says they are positive. They are called true positives (TP). Some have the disease, but the test incorrectly claims they don't. They are called false negatives (FN). Some don't have the disease, and the test says they don't – true negatives (TN). Finally, there might be healthy people who have a positive test result – false positives (FP). These can be arranged into a 2×2 contingency table (confusion matrix), conventionally with the test result on the vertical axis and the actual condition on the horizontal axis. These numbers can then be totaled, yielding both a grand total and marginal totals. Totaling the entire table, the number of true positives, false negatives, true negatives, and false positives add up to 100% of the set. Totaling the columns (adding vertically) the number of true positives and false positives add up to 100% of the test positives, and likewise for negatives. Totaling the rows (adding horizontally), the number of true positives and false negatives add up to 100% of the condition positives (conversely for negatives). The basic marginal ratio statistics are obtained by dividing the 2×2=4 values in the table by the marginal totals (either rows or columns), yielding 2 auxiliary 2×2 tables, for a total of 8 ratios. These ratios come in 4 complementary pairs, each pair summing to 1, and so each of these derived 2×2 tables can be summarized as a pair of 2 numbers, together with their complements. Further statistics can be obtained by taking ratios of these ratios, ratios of ratios, or more complicated functions. The contingency table and the most common derived ratios are summarized below; see sequel for details. Note that the rows correspond to the condition actually being positive or negative (or classified as such by the gold standard), as indicated by the color-coding, and the associated statistics are prevalence-independent, while the columns correspond to the test being positive or negative, and the associated statistics are prevalence-dependent. There are analogous likelihood ratios for prediction values, but these are less commonly used, and not depicted above. == Pairs of metrics == Often accuracy is evaluated with a pair of metrics composed in a standard pattern. === Sensitivity and specificity === The fundamental prevalence-independent statistics are sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity or True Positive Rate (TPR), also known as recall, is the proportion of people that tested positive and are positive (True Positive, TP) of all the people that actually are positive (Condition Positive, CP = TP + FN). It can be seen as the probability that the test is positive given that the patient is sick. With higher sensitivity, fewer actual cases of disease go undetected (or, in the case of the factory quality control, fewer faulty products go to the market). Specificity (SPC) or True Negative Rate (TNR) is the proportion of people that tested negative and are negative (True Negative, TN) of all the people that actually are negative (Condition Negative, CN = TN + FP). As with sensitivity, it can be looked at as the probability that the test result is negative given that the patient is not sick. With higher specificity, fewer healthy people are labeled as sick (or, in the factory case, fewer good products are discarded). The relationship between sensitivity and specificity, as well as the performance of the classifier, can be visualized and studied using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. In theory, sensitivity and specificity are independent in the sense that it is possible to achieve 100% in both (such as in the red/blue ball example given above). In more practical, less contrived instances, however, there is usually a trade-off, such that they are inversely proportional to one another to some extent. This is because we rarely measure the actual thing we would like to classify; rather, we generally measure an indicator of the thing we would like to classify, referred to as a surrogate marker. The reason why 100% is achievable in the ball example is because redness and blueness is determined by directly detecting redness and blueness. However, indicators are sometimes compromised, such as when non-indicators mimic indicators or when indicators are time-dependent, only becoming evident after a certain lag time. The following example of a pregnancy test will make use of such an indicator. Modern pregnancy tests do not use the pregnancy itself to determine pregnancy status; rather, human chorionic gonadotropin is used, or hCG, present in the urine of gravid females, as a surrogate marker to indicate that a woman is pregnant. Because hCG can also be produced by a tumor, the specificity of modern pregnancy tests cannot be 100% (because false positives are possible). Also, because hCG is present in the urine in such small concentrations after fertilization and early embryogenesis, the sensitivity of modern pregnancy tests cannot be 100% (because false negatives are possible). === Positive and negative predictive values === In addition to sensitivity and specificity, the performance of a binary classification test can be measured with positive predictive value (PPV), also known as precision, and negative predictive value (NPV). The positive prediction value answers the question "If the test result is positive, how well does that predict an actual presence of disease?". It is calculated as TP/(TP + FP); that is, it is the proportion of true positives out of all positive results. The negative prediction value is the same, but for negatives, naturally. ==== Impact of prevalence on predictive values ==== Prevalence has a significant impact on prediction values. As an example, suppose there is a test for a disease with 99% sensitivity and 99% specificity. If 2000 people are tested and the prevalence (in the sample) is 50%, 1000 of them are sick and 1000 of them are healthy. Thus about 990 true positives and 990 true negatives are likely, with 10 false positives and 10 false negatives. The positive and negative prediction values would be 99%, so there can be high confidence in the result. However, if the prevalence is only 5%, so of the 2000 people only 100 are really sick, then the prediction values change significantly. The likely result is 99 true positives, 1 false negative, 1881 true negatives and 19 false positives. Of the 19+99 people tested positive, only 99 really have the disease – that means, intuitively, that given that a patient's test result is positive, there is only 84% chance that they really have the disease. On the other hand, given that the patient's test result is negative, there is only 1 chance in 1882, or 0.05% probability, that the patient has the disease despite the test result. === Precision and recall === Precision and recall can be interpreted as (estimated) conditional probabilities: Precision is given by P ( C = P | C ^ = P ) {\displaystyle P(C=P|{\hat {C}}=P)} while recall is given by P ( C ^ = P | C = P ) {\displaystyle P({\hat {C}}=P|C=P)} , where C ^ {\ The clustering illusion is the tendency to erroneously consider the inevitable "streaks" or "clusters" arising in small samples from random distributions to be non-random. The illusion is caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or pseudorandom data. Thomas Gilovich, an early author on the subject, argued that the effect occurs for different types of random dispersions. Some might perceive patterns in stock market price fluctuations over time, or clusters in two-dimensional data such as the locations of impact of World War II V-1 flying bombs on maps of London. Although Londoners developed specific theories about the pattern of impacts within London, a statistical analysis by R. D. Clarke originally published in 1946 showed that the impacts of V-2 rockets on London were a close fit to a random distribution. == Similar biases == Using this cognitive bias in causal reasoning may result in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, in which differences in data are ignored and similarities are overemphasized. More general forms of erroneous pattern recognition are pareidolia and apophenia. Related biases are the illusion of control which the clustering illusion could contribute to, and insensitivity to sample size in which people don't expect greater variation in smaller samples. A different cognitive bias involving misunderstanding of chance streams is the gambler's fallacy. == Possible causes == Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky explained this kind of misprediction as being caused by the representativeness heuristic (which itself they also first proposed).State–action–reward–state–action
Evaluation of binary classifiers
Clustering illusion