The social business model is use of social media tools and social networking behavioral standards by businesses for communication with customers, suppliers, and others. Combining social networking etiquette (being helpful, transparent and authentic) with business engagement on LinkedIn (for one-to-one interaction), Twitter (for immediacy) and Facebook (for content sharing) more fully involves employees in the organization and increases customer intimacy and trust. == Overview == Traditional business models, particularly in large organizations, have had as one common characteristic careful limitation of direct contact between those within the organization and those outside of it. Only certain specific individuals (most frequently in roles such as sales, customer service and field consulting) were designated as "customer-facing" personnel. Organizations further limited outside access to internal employees through filtering mechanisms such as publishing only a main switchboard number (whether routed through a live receptionist or an interactive voice response system) and generic "sales@" or "info@" email addresses. The Cluetrain Manifesto (written by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger and published in 1999) was among the first books to predict the demise of this old order and the emergence of more open business models, though most of the business world was slow to adopt the book's recommended cultural changes. Thirteen years later, authors Dion Hinchcliffe and Peter Kim added structural underpinnings to the cultural shifts outlined in The Cluetrain Manifesto in their book, Social Business by Design. The book details many of the ways social media tools and practices are being adopted within organizations, to support both internal employee collaboration and external customer engagement (which the authors describe as the "bigger problem"). == Elements == In implementing the social business model, organizations apply social networking protocols and tools in a range of areas, potentially including: Marketing Customer Support Recruiting Crowdsourcing Internal employee collaboration Sales Product Development Supply Chain Operations Investor Relations == Characteristics of organizations adopting the social business model == Organizations that fully adopt the social business model will exhibit four key characteristics: Connected – employees will be able to seamlessly engage one-on-one in real-time with other employees and individuals outside the organization (customers, prospects, partners, media, etc.) using a variety of communications methods including text chat, voice, file sharing, email, and video chat. Social – employees will follow social networking etiquette (being authentic, helpful and transparent) in external interactions. The focus will be on answering questions and providing information rather than overt sales or promotion. Presence – these conversations may originate on the company's website or elsewhere online (e.g., publication websites, industry portals, or social networking sites such as LinkedIn or Facebook). Intelligent – organizations will use in-depth analytics to monitor connections, social interactions and presence; measure corresponding business results; and continually adjust and improve practices for increased effectiveness. == Technical and functional requirements == While much of the change inherent in adopting the social business model is cultural, it also requires process changes enabled by social business technology. Functional requirements for a social business technology platform include: Analytics (including the cost of engagement as well as various measures of return on investment such as leads, sales, referrals, recommendations, and retained customers). Integration with other social media and business tools such as CRM systems, partner relationship management (PRM) software, product development, website analytics, and employee-recruiting applications. Rules-based workflow (e.g. routing a comment to the appropriate individual for a response, based on content). Geolocation (so customers or prospects can be automatically routed to local sales or customer service representatives). Content sharing. Collaboration tools. Transparency (i.e., people should know who they are engaging with) Unified communications (the ability to engage via voice, text, video, email, and share a wide variety of file types) Storage (the ability to store interactions for legal, training, compliance or compensation purposes, and purge stored data when no longer needed based on company policy or regulatory requirements). Immediacy (real-time monitoring and response).
Attempto Controlled English
Attempto Controlled English (ACE) is a controlled natural language, i.e. a subset of standard English with a restricted syntax and restricted semantics described by a small set of construction and interpretation rules. It has been under development at the University of Zurich since 1995. In 2013, ACE version 6.7 was announced. ACE can serve as knowledge representation, specification, and query language, and is intended for professionals who want to use formal notations and formal methods, but may not be familiar with them. Though ACE appears perfectly natural—it can be read and understood by any speaker of English—it is in fact a formal language. ACE and its related tools have been used in the fields of software specifications, theorem proving, proof assistants, text summaries, ontologies, rules, querying, medical documentation and planning. Here are some simple examples: Every woman is a human. A woman is a human. A man tries-on a new tie. If the tie pleases his wife then the man buys it. ACE construction rules require that each noun be introduced by a determiner (a, every, no, some, at least 5, ...). Regarding the list of examples above, ACE interpretation rules decide that (1) is interpreted as universally quantified, while (2) is interpreted as existentially quantified. Sentences like "Women are human" do not follow ACE syntax and are consequently not valid. Interpretation rules resolve the anaphoric references in (3): the tie and it of the second sentence refer to a new tie of the first sentence, while his and the man of the second sentence refer to a man of the first sentence. Thus an ACE text is a coherent entity of anaphorically linked sentences. The Attempto Parsing Engine (APE) translates ACE texts unambiguously into discourse representation structures (DRS) that use a variant of the language of first-order logic. A DRS can be further translated into other formal languages, for instance AceRules with various semantics, OWL, and SWRL. Translating an ACE text into (a fragment of) first-order logic allows users to reason about the text, for instance to verify, to validate, and to query it. == Overview == As an overview of the current version 6.6 of ACE this section: Briefly describes the vocabulary Gives an account of the syntax Summarises the handling of ambiguity Explains the processing of anaphoric references. === Vocabulary === The vocabulary of ACE comprises: Predefined function words (e.g. determiners, conjunctions) Predefined phrases (e.g. "it is false that ...", "it is possible that ...") Content words (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs). === Grammar === The grammar of ACE defines and constrains the form and the meaning of ACE sentences and texts. ACE's grammar is expressed as a set of construction rules. The meaning of sentences is described as a small set of interpretation rules. A Troubleshooting Guide describes how to use ACE and how to avoid pitfalls. ==== ACE texts ==== An ACE text is a sequence of declarative sentences that can be anaphorically interrelated. Furthermore, ACE supports questions and commands. ==== Simple sentences ==== A simple sentence asserts that something is the case—a fact, an event, a state. The temperature is −2 °C. A customer inserts 2 cards. A card and a code are valid. Simple ACE sentences have the following general structure: subject + verb + complements + adjuncts Every sentence has a subject and a verb. Complements (direct and indirect objects) are necessary for transitive verbs (insert something) and ditransitive verbs (give something to somebody), whereas adjuncts (adverbs, prepositional phrases) are optional. All elements of a simple sentence can be elaborated upon to describe the situation in more detail. To further specify the nouns customer and card, we could add adjectives: A trusted customer inserts two valid cards. possessive nouns and of-prepositional phrases: John's customer inserts a card of Mary. or variables as appositions: John inserts a card A. Other modifications of nouns are possible through relative sentences: A customer who is trusted inserts a card that he owns. which are described below since they make a sentence composite. We can also detail the insertion event, e.g. by adding an adverb: A customer inserts some cards manually. or, equivalently: A customer manually inserts some cards. or, by adding prepositional phrases: A customer inserts some cards into a slot. We can combine all of these elaborations to arrive at: John's customer who is trusted inserts a valid card of Mary manually into a slot A. ==== Composite sentences ==== Composite sentences are recursively built from simpler sentences through coordination, subordination, quantification, and negation. Note that ACE composite sentences overlap with what linguists call compound sentences and complex sentences. ===== Coordination ===== Coordination by and is possible between sentences and between phrases of the same syntactic type. A customer inserts a card and the machine checks the code. There is a customer who inserts a card and who enters a code. A customer inserts a card and enters a code. An old and trusted customer enters a card and a code. Note that the coordination of the noun phrases a card and a code represents a plural object. Coordination by or is possible between sentences, verb phrases, and relative clauses. A customer inserts a card or the machine checks the code. A customer inserts a card or enters a code. A customer owns a card that is invalid or that is damaged. Coordination by and and or is governed by the standard binding order of logic, i.e. and binds stronger than or. Commas can be used to override the standard binding order. Thus the sentence: A customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard, and inserts a code. means that the customer inserts a VisaCard and a code, or alternatively a MasterCard and a code. ===== Subordination ===== There are four constructs of subordination: relative sentences, if-then sentences, modality, and sentence subordination. Relative sentences starting with who, which, and that allow to add detail to nouns: A customer who is trusted inserts a card that he owns. With the help of if-then sentences we can specify conditional or hypothetical situations: If a card is valid then a customer inserts it. Note the anaphoric reference via the pronoun it in the then-part to the noun phrase a card in the if-part. Modality allows us to express possibility and necessity: A trusted customer can/must insert a card. It is possible/necessary that a trusted customer inserts a card. Sentence subordination comes in various forms: It is true/false that a customer inserts a card. It is not provable that a customer inserts a card. A clerk believes that a customer inserts a card. ===== Quantification ===== Quantification allows us to speak about all objects of a certain class (universal quantification), or to denote explicitly the existence of at least one object of this class (existential quantification). The textual occurrence of a universal or existential quantifier opens its scope that extends to the end of the sentence, or in coordinations to the end of the respective coordinated sentence. To express that all involved customers insert cards we can write Every customer inserts a card. This sentence means that each customer inserts a card that may, or may not, be the same as the one inserted by another customer. To specify that all customers insert the same card—however unrealistic that situation seems—we can write: A card is inserted by every customer. or, equivalently: There is a card that every customer inserts. To state that every card is inserted by a customer we write: Every card is inserted by a customer. or, somewhat indirectly: For every card there is a customer who inserts it. ===== Negation ===== Negation allows us to express that something is not the case: A customer does not insert a card. A card is not valid. To negate something for all objects of a certain class one uses no: No customer inserts more than 2 cards. or, there is no: There is no customer who inserts a card. To negate a complete statement one uses sentence negation: It is false that a customer inserts a card. These forms of negation are logical negations, i.e. they state that something is provably not the case. Negation as failure states that a state of affairs cannot be proved, i.e. there is no information whether the state of affairs is the case or not. It is not provable that a customer inserts a card. ==== Queries ==== ACE supports two forms of queries: yes/no-queries and wh-queries. Yes/no-queries ask for the existence or non-existence of a specified situation. If we specified: A customer inserts a card. then we can ask: Does a customer insert a card? to get a positive answer. Note that interrogative sentences always end with a question mark. With the help of wh-queries, i.e. queries with query words, we can interrogate a text for details of the specified situation. If we specified: A
Dispersive flies optimisation
Dispersive flies optimisation (DFO) is a bare-bones swarm intelligence algorithm which is inspired by the swarming behaviour of flies hovering over food sources. DFO is a simple optimiser which works by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a numerical measure that is calculated by a fitness function. Each member of the population, a fly or an agent, holds a candidate solution whose suitability can be evaluated by their fitness value. Optimisation problems are often formulated as either minimisation or maximisation problems. DFO was introduced with the intention of analysing a simplified swarm intelligence algorithm with the fewest tunable parameters and components. In the first work on DFO, this algorithm was compared against a few other existing swarm intelligence techniques using error, efficiency and diversity measures. It is shown that despite the simplicity of the algorithm, which only uses agents’ position vectors at time t to generate the position vectors for time t + 1, it exhibits a competitive performance. Since its inception, DFO has been used in a variety of applications including medical imaging and image analysis as well as data mining and machine learning. == Algorithm == DFO bears many similarities with other existing continuous, population-based optimisers (e.g. particle swarm optimization and differential evolution). In that, the swarming behaviour of the individuals consists of two tightly connected mechanisms, one is the formation of the swarm and the other is its breaking or weakening. DFO works by facilitating the information exchange between the members of the population (the swarming flies). Each fly x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } represents a position in a d-dimensional search space: x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} , and the fitness of each fly is calculated by the fitness function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} , which takes into account the flies' d dimensions: f ( x ) = f ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )=f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} . The pseudocode below represents one iteration of the algorithm: for i = 1 : N flies x i . fitness = f ( x i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x_{i}} .{\text{fitness}}=f(\mathbf {x} _{i})} end for i x s {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{s}} = arg min [ f ( x i ) ] , i ∈ { 1 , … , N } {\textstyle [f(\mathbf {x} _{i})],\;i\in \{1,\ldots ,N\}} for i = 1 : N and i ≠ s {\displaystyle i\neq s} for d = 1 : D dimensions if U ( 0 , 1 ) < Δ {\displaystyle U(0,1)<\Delta } x i d t + 1 = U ( x min , d , x max , d ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=U(x_{\min ,d},x_{\max ,d})} else x i d t + 1 = x i n d t + U ( 0 , 1 ) ( x s d t − x i d t ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=x_{i_{nd}}^{t}+U(0,1)(x_{sd}^{t}-x_{id}^{t})} end if end for d end for i In the algorithm above, x i d t + 1 {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}} represents fly i {\displaystyle i} at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} ; x i n d t {\displaystyle x_{i_{nd}}^{t}} presents x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} 's best neighbouring fly in ring topology (left or right, using flies indexes), at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t {\displaystyle t} ; and x s d t {\displaystyle x_{sd}^{t}} is the swarm's best fly. Using this update equation, the swarm's population update depends on each fly's best neighbour (which is used as the focus μ {\displaystyle \mu } , and the difference between the current fly and the best in swarm represents the spread of movement, σ {\displaystyle \sigma } ). Other than the population size N {\displaystyle N} , the only tunable parameter is the disturbance threshold Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } , which controls the dimension-wise restart in each fly vector. This mechanism is proposed to control the diversity of the swarm. Other notable minimalist swarm algorithm is Bare bones particle swarms (BB-PSO), which is based on particle swarm optimisation, along with bare bones differential evolution (BBDE) which is a hybrid of the bare bones particle swarm optimiser and differential evolution, aiming to reduce the number of parameters. Alhakbani in her PhD thesis covers many aspects of the algorithms including several DFO applications in feature selection as well as parameter tuning. == Applications == Some of the recent applications of DFO are listed below: Optimising support vector machine kernel to classify imbalanced data Quantifying symmetrical complexity in computational aesthetics Analysing computational autopoiesis and computational creativity Identifying calcifications in medical images Building non-identical organic structures for game's space development Deep Neuroevolution: Training Deep Neural Networks for False Alarm Detection in Intensive Care Units Identification of animation key points from 2D-medialness maps
Quickprop
Quickprop is an iterative method for determining the minimum of the loss function of an artificial neural network, following an algorithm inspired by the Newton's method. Sometimes, the algorithm is classified to the group of the second order learning methods. It follows a quadratic approximation of the previous gradient step and the current gradient, which is expected to be close to the minimum of the loss function, under the assumption that the loss function is locally approximately square, trying to describe it by means of an upwardly open parabola. The minimum is sought in the vertex of the parabola. The procedure requires only local information of the artificial neuron to which it is applied. The k {\displaystyle k} -th approximation step is given by: Δ ( k ) w i j = Δ ( k − 1 ) w i j ( ∇ i j E ( k ) ∇ i j E ( k − 1 ) − ∇ i j E ( k ) ) {\displaystyle \Delta ^{(k)}\,w_{ij}=\Delta ^{(k-1)}\,w_{ij}\left({\frac {\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k)}}{\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k-1)}-\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k)}}}\right)} Where w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is the weight of input i {\displaystyle i} of neuron j {\displaystyle j} , and E {\displaystyle E} is the loss function. The Quickprop algorithm is an implementation of the error backpropagation algorithm, but the network can behave chaotically during the learning phase due to large step sizes.
Rectified linear unit
In the context of artificial neural networks, the rectifier or ReLU (rectified linear unit) activation function is an activation function defined as the non-negative part of its argument, i.e., the ramp function: ReLU ( x ) = x + = max ( 0 , x ) = x + | x | 2 = { x if x > 0 , 0 x ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \operatorname {ReLU} (x)=x^{+}=\max(0,x)={\frac {x+|x|}{2}}={\begin{cases}x&{\text{if }}x>0,\\0&x\leq 0\end{cases}}} where x {\displaystyle x} is the input to a neuron. This is analogous to half-wave rectification in electrical engineering. ReLU is one of the most popular activation functions for artificial neural networks, and finds application in computer vision and speech recognition using deep neural nets and computational neuroscience. == History == The ReLU was first used by Alston Householder in 1941 as a mathematical abstraction of biological neural networks. Kunihiko Fukushima in 1969 used ReLU in the context of visual feature extraction in hierarchical neural networks. In 1998, Gregory Woodbury demonstrated that the rectified linear function could account for a broad range of emergent properties in the visual cortex. His work showed that a single unified model could drive the joint development of refined retinotopic maps, ocular dominance columns, and orientation selectivity. By utilizing the rectifier's "cutoff" property, Woodbury achieved a close quantitative fit to biological data, matching the spatial periodicities and topographic refinement patterns observed in macaque and cat cortical maps. Furthermore, he extended this framework to adult plasticity, accurately replicating the spatial and temporal dynamics of lesion-induced cortical reorganization. This research established that the rectified linear response was a necessary mechanism for the stable self-organisation and maintenance of complex, multi-feature neural maps. In 2000, Hahnloser et al. argued that ReLU approximates the biological relationship between neural firing rates and input current, in addition to enabling recurrent neural network dynamics to stabilise under weaker criteria. Prior to 2010, most activation functions used were the logistic sigmoid (which is inspired by probability theory; see logistic regression) and its more numerically efficient counterpart, the hyperbolic tangent. Around 2010, the use of ReLU became common again. Jarrett et al. (2009) noted that rectification by either absolute or ReLU (which they called "positive part") was critical for object recognition in convolutional neural networks (CNNs), specifically because it allows average pooling without neighboring filter outputs cancelling each other out. They hypothesized that the use of sigmoid or tanh was responsible for poor performance in previous CNNs. Nair and Hinton (2010) made a theoretical argument that the softplus activation function should be used, in that the softplus function numerically approximates the sum of an exponential number of linear models that share parameters. They then proposed ReLU as a good approximation to it. Specifically, they began by considering a single binary neuron in a Boltzmann machine that takes x {\displaystyle x} as input, and produces 1 as output with probability σ ( x ) = 1 1 + e − x {\displaystyle \sigma (x)={\frac {1}{1+e^{-x}}}} . They then considered extending its range of output by making infinitely many copies of it X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … {\displaystyle X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\dots } , that all take the same input, offset by an amount 0.5 , 1.5 , 2.5 , … {\displaystyle 0.5,1.5,2.5,\dots } , then their outputs are added together as ∑ i = 1 ∞ X i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }X_{i}} . They then demonstrated that ∑ i = 1 ∞ X i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }X_{i}} is approximately equal to N ( log ( 1 + e x ) , σ ( x ) ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\log(1+e^{x}),\sigma (x))} , which is also approximately equal to ReLU ( N ( x , σ ( x ) ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {ReLU} ({\mathcal {N}}(x,\sigma (x)))} , where N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}} stands for the gaussian distribution. They also argued for another reason for using ReLU: that it allows "intensity equivariance" in image recognition. That is, multiplying input image by a constant k {\displaystyle k} multiplies the output also. In contrast, this is false for other activation functions like sigmoid or tanh. They found that ReLU activation allowed good empirical performance in restricted Boltzmann machines. Glorot et al (2011) argued that ReLU has the following advantages over sigmoid or tanh: ReLU is more similar to biological neurons' responses in their main operating regime. ReLU avoids vanishing gradients. ReLU is cheaper to compute. ReLU creates sparse representation naturally, because many hidden units output exactly zero for a given input. They also found empirically that deep networks trained with ReLU can achieve strong performance without unsupervised pre-training, especially on large, purely supervised tasks. In 2017, the rectified linear function became a central component of the transformer architecture introduced in the Vaswani et al paper "Attention Is All You Need". Within every transformer layer, ReLU is utilized in the position-wise feed-forward networks (FFN), defined by Equation 2 of their paper: FFN ( x ) = max ( 0 , x W 1 + b 1 ) W 2 + b 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {FFN} (x)=\max(0,xW_{1}+b_{1})W_{2}+b_{2}} This equation is foundational to the model's capacity; while the attention mechanism determines the relationships between tokens, the ReLU-based FFN performs the majority of the numerical computation and houses the bulk of the model's parameters. The efficiency and scalability of this rectified framework triggered a global technological revolution, enabling the development of Large Language Models that have had a profound economic impact. The industrial response to this architecture—including the massive expansion of AI-specific hardware and the birth of the generative AI sector—has positioned the Transformer as a cornerstone of 21st-century infrastructure. During the post 2017 period of rapid AI advancement, the rectified linear unit function has been key to achieving increased model performance and scaling due to the fact that it zeros out responses that are immaterial for a given stimuli, preventing them from accumulating in massive scale models. It is the complete silencing of the parts of the model found to be stimuli-irrelevant during learning that allows for scaling. As the stimuli-irrelevant proportion of the model becomes more massive, these highly numerous connections within the model would inevitably accumulate during scaling no matter how small each individual response is. Therefore, the rectified linear unit function, with its absolute zeroing property, enabled the scaling to hundred billion parameter models and beyond. Early Transformer scaling giants like GPT-3 (2020) and Falcon-180B (2023) relied on the rectified linear unit function explicitly, while successors such as GPT-4 (2023) and Llama 3 (2024) utilized smoother variants like GELU or SwiGLU. These variants were used to improve training stability while fundamentally preserving the rectified principle of zeroing low responses. At the centre of modern artificial intelligence ReLU and its variants maintain absolute zero response across the bulk of the model at any one time, while maintaining approximately linear reponses for stimuli-relevant connections enabling high performance on each specific cognitive task. This feature of activation sparsity has been critical for massive scaling and performance gains of AI models right up to the present day. == Advantages == Advantages of ReLU include: Sparse activation: for example, in a randomly initialized network, only about 50% of hidden units are activated (i.e. have a non-zero output). Better gradient propagation: fewer vanishing gradient problems compared to sigmoidal activation functions that saturate in both directions. Efficiency: only requires comparison and addition. Scale-invariant (homogeneous, or "intensity equivariance"): max ( 0 , a x ) = a max ( 0 , x ) for a ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \max(0,ax)=a\max(0,x){\text{ for }}a\geq 0} . == Potential problems == Possible downsides can include: Non-differentiability at zero (however, it is differentiable anywhere else, and the value of the derivative at zero can be chosen to be 0 or 1 arbitrarily). Not zero-centered: ReLU outputs are always non-negative. This can make it harder for the network to learn during backpropagation, because gradient updates tend to push weights in one direction (positive or negative). Batch normalization can help address this. ReLU is unbounded. Redundancy of the parametrization: Because ReLU is scale-invariant, the network computes the exact same function by scaling the weights and biases in front of a ReLU activation by k {\displaystyle k} , and the weights after by 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} . Dying ReLU: ReLU neurons can sometimes be pushed into states
InciWeb
InciWeb is an interagency all-risk incident web information management system provided by the United States Forest Service released in 2004. It was originally developed for wildland fire emergencies, but can be also used for other emergency incidents (natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes). == Introduction == It was developed with two primary missions: 1. Provide the public a single source of incident related information 2. Provide a standardized reporting tool for the Public Affairs community Official announcements include evacuations, road closures, news releases, maps, photographs, and basic info and current situation about the incident. Incident information can be accessed by: web browser at https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/ Twitter RSS web feed == Technical == The original application was hosted at the United States Forest Service - Wildland Fire Training and Conference Center, at McClellan Airfield, California, comprising three servers: Database server Administrative server Load balancer for the public content which routes traffic to a pool of eight servers. Web traffic averages 2 million plus hits daily during the fire season with the ability to handle 3.5 million hits. The servers were moved to the National information Technology Center (NITC), Kansas City, Missouri on July 16, 2008, along with the release of version 2.0; the current version is 2.2. == Availability issues == InciWeb was having technical difficulties due to the high volume of Internet users trying to access the site during the September–October 2006 Day Fire and the Summer 2008 California wildfires. == Participating agencies == United States Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Department of the Interior Office of Aircraft Services National Association of State Foresters United States Fire Administration These same agencies are also in the National Interagency Fire Center.
Correlation clustering
Clustering is the problem of partitioning data points into groups based on similarity or dissimilarity. Correlation clustering is a clustering framework in which a set of objects is partitioned into clusters based on pairwise similarity and dissimilarity information, without requiring the number of clusters to be specified in advance. == Description of the problem == In machine learning, correlation clustering (also known as cluster editing) considers settings in which pairwise similarity or dissimilarity relationships between objects are known. A standard formulation models the input as an unweighted complete graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} , where each edge is labeled either + {\displaystyle +} or − {\displaystyle -} (that is, the graph is a signed graph), indicating whether the corresponding endpoints are similar or dissimilar. The goal is to find a clustering (that is, a partition of V {\displaystyle V} ) that either maximizes the number of agreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster and negative edges whose endpoints lie in different clusters—or minimizes the number of disagreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints are separated and negative edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster. Unlike other clustering methods such as k-means, correlation clustering does not require choosing the number of clusters k {\displaystyle k} in advance. It is not always possible to find a clustering with zero disagreements. For example, consider a triangle graph containing two positive edges and one negative edge. In this case, every clustering incurs at least one disagreement. Such configurations are referred to in the literature as bad triangles. From a computational perspective, optimizing the correlation clustering objective is challenging. The (decision version of the) problem is NP-complete. A large body of subsequent work has developed approximation algorithms for correlation clustering under various assumptions, including complete or general graphs and unweighted or weighted graphs, for both minimization and maximization objectives. This problem is considered one of the fundamental combinatorial optimization problems, and many algorithmic techniques have been developed to address it. The problem has also been studied extensively across multiple disciplines. A comprehensive literature review of early correlation clustering research is provided by Wahid and Hassini. == Formal Definitions == Let G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} be a graph with nodes V {\displaystyle V} and edges E {\displaystyle E} . A clustering of G {\displaystyle G} is a partition of its node set Π = { π 1 , … , π k } {\displaystyle \Pi =\{\pi _{1},\dots ,\pi _{k}\}} with V = π 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ π k {\displaystyle V=\pi _{1}\cup \dots \cup \pi _{k}} and π i ∩ π j = ∅ {\displaystyle \pi _{i}\cap \pi _{j}=\emptyset } for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} . For a given clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } , let δ ( Π ) = { { u , v } ∈ E ∣ { u , v } ⊈ π ∀ π ∈ Π } {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )=\{\{u,v\}\in E\mid \{u,v\}\not \subseteq \pi \;\forall \pi \in \Pi \}} denote the subset of edges of G {\displaystyle G} whose endpoints are in different subsets of the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Now, let w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} be a function that assigns a non-negative weight to each edge of the graph and let E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} be a partition of the edges into attractive ( E + {\displaystyle E^{+}} ) and repulsive ( E − {\displaystyle E^{-}} ) edges; that is, the edges are signed. The minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem is the following optimization problem: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∩ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∖ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that disagree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Similarly to the minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem, the maximum agreement correlation clustering problem is defined as maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∖ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∩ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that agree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Instead of formulating the correlation clustering problem in terms of non-negative edge weights and a partition of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges the problem is also formulated in terms of positive and negative edge costs without partitioning the set of edges explicitly. For given weights w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} and a given partition E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges, the edge costs can be defined by c e = { w e if e ∈ E + − w e if e ∈ E − {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}c_{e}={\begin{cases}\;\;w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{+}\\-w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{-}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} for all e ∈ E {\displaystyle e\in E} . An edge whose endpoints are in different clusters is said to be cut. The set δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )} of all edges that are cut is often called a multicut of G {\displaystyle G} . The minimum cost multicut problem is the problem of finding a clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } of G {\displaystyle G} such that the sum of the costs of the edges whose endpoints are in different clusters is minimal: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Similar to the minimum cost multicut problem, coalition structure generation in weighted graph games is the problem of finding a clustering such that the sum of the costs of the edges that are not cut is maximal: maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E ∖ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E\setminus \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} This formulation is also known as the clique partitioning problem. It can be shown that all four problems that are formulated above are equivalent. This means that a clustering that is optimal with respect to any of the four objectives is optimal for all of the four objectives. == Algorithms == If the graph admits a clustering with zero disagreements, then deleting all negative edges and computing the connected components of the remaining graph yields an optimal clustering. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a clustering was given by Davis: no cycle in the graph may contain exactly one negative edge. Bansal et al. discuss the NP-completeness proof and also present both a constant factor approximation algorithm and polynomial-time approximation scheme to find the clusters in this setting. Ailon et al. propose a randomized 3-approximation algorithm for the same problem. CC-Pivot(G=(V,E+,E−)) Pick random pivot i ∈ V Set C = { i } {\displaystyle C=\{i\}} , V'=Ø For all j ∈ V, j ≠ i; If (i,j) ∈ E+ then Add j to C Else (If (i,j) ∈ E−) Add j to V' Let G' be the subgraph induced by V' Return clustering C,CC-Pivot(G') The authors show that the above algorithm is a 3-approximation algorithm for correlation clustering. The best polynomial-time approximation algorithm known at the moment for this problem achieves a ~2.06 approximation by rounding a linear program, as shown by Chawla, Makarychev, Schramm, and Yaroslavtsev. Karpinski and Schudy proved existence of a polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) for that problem on complete graphs and fixed number of clusters. == Optimal number of clusters == In 2011, it was shown by Bagon and Galun that the optimization of the correlation clustering functional is closely related to well known discrete optimization methods. In their work they proposed a probabilistic analysis of the underlying implicit model that allows the correlation clustering functional to estimate the