Relational data mining

Relational data mining is the data mining technique for relational databases. Unlike traditional data mining algorithms, which look for patterns in a single table (propositional patterns), relational data mining algorithms look for patterns among multiple tables (relational patterns). For most types of propositional patterns, there are corresponding relational patterns. For example, there are relational classification rules (relational classification), relational regression tree, and relational association rules. There are several approaches to relational data mining: Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) Graph Mining Propositionalization Multi-view learning == Algorithms == Multi-Relation Association Rules: Multi-Relation Association Rules (MRAR) is a new class of association rules which in contrast to primitive, simple and even multi-relational association rules (that are usually extracted from multi-relational databases), each rule item consists of one entity but several relations. These relations indicate indirect relationship between the entities. Consider the following MRAR where the first item consists of three relations live in, nearby and humid: “Those who live in a place which is near by a city with humid climate type and also are younger than 20 -> their health condition is good”. Such association rules are extractable from RDBMS data or semantic web data. == Software == Safarii: a Data Mining environment for analysing large relational databases based on a multi-relational data mining engine. Dataconda: a software, free for research and teaching purposes, that helps mining relational databases without the use of SQL. == Datasets == Relational dataset repository: a collection of publicly available relational datasets.

Data-centric AI

Data-centric AI is an approach within artificial intelligence that emphasizes on improving the quality, consistency and representativeness of the data used to train machine learning models, rather than focusing primarily on optimizing model architectures or algorithms. This idea has gained traction as researchers and practitioners have come to believe that many performance limitations of machine learning systems stem from issues such as noisy labels, biased datasets, and lack of coverage in the data. Data-centric AI involves disciplined approach to data cleaning, augmentation, labeling, and governance that improves model performance and reliability in applications such as computer vision, natural language processing, and further.

Independent component analysis

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

Spiking neural network

Spiking neural networks (SNNs) are artificial neural networks (ANN) that mimic natural neural networks. These models leverage timing of discrete spikes as the main information carrier. In addition to neuronal and synaptic state, SNNs incorporate the concept of time into their operating model. The idea is that neurons in the SNN do not transmit information at each propagation cycle (as it happens with typical multi-layer perceptron networks), but rather transmit information only when a membrane potential—an intrinsic quality of the neuron related to its membrane electrical charge—reaches a specific value, called the threshold. When the membrane potential reaches the threshold, the neuron fires, and generates a signal that travels to other neurons which, in turn, increase or decrease their potentials in response to this signal. A neuron model that fires at the moment of threshold crossing is also called a spiking neuron model. While spike rates can be considered the analogue of the variable output of a traditional ANN, neurobiology research indicated that high speed processing cannot be performed solely through a rate-based scheme. For example humans can perform an image recognition task requiring no more than 10ms of processing time per neuron through the successive layers (going from the retina to the temporal lobe). This time window is too short for rate-based encoding. The precise spike timings in a small set of spiking neurons also has a higher information coding capacity compared with a rate-based approach. The most prominent spiking neuron model is the leaky integrate-and-fire model. In that model, the momentary activation level (modeled as a differential equation) is normally considered to be the neuron's state, with incoming spikes pushing this value higher or lower, until the state eventually either decays or—if the firing threshold is reached—the neuron fires. After firing, the state variable is reset to a lower value. Various decoding methods exist for interpreting the outgoing spike train as a real-value number, relying on either the frequency of spikes (rate-code), the time-to-first-spike after stimulation, or the interval between spikes. == History == Many multi-layer artificial neural networks are fully connected, receiving input from every neuron in the previous layer and signalling every neuron in the subsequent layer. Although these networks have achieved breakthroughs, they do not match biological networks and do not mimic neurons. The biology-inspired Hodgkin–Huxley model of a spiking neuron was proposed in 1952. This model described how action potentials are initiated and propagated. Communication between neurons, which requires the exchange of chemical neurotransmitters in the synaptic gap, is described in models such as the integrate-and-fire model, FitzHugh–Nagumo model (1961–1962), and Hindmarsh–Rose model (1984). The leaky integrate-and-fire model (or a derivative) is commonly used as it is easier to compute than Hodgkin–Huxley. While the notion of an artificial spiking neural network became popular only in the twenty-first century, studies between 1980 and 1995 supported the concept. The first models of this type of ANN appeared to simulate non-algorithmic intelligent information processing systems. However, the notion of the spiking neural network as a mathematical model was first worked on in the early 1970s. As of 2019 SNNs lagged behind ANNs in accuracy, but the gap is decreasing, and has vanished on some tasks. == Underpinnings == Information in the brain is represented as action potentials (neuron spikes), which may group into spike trains or coordinated waves. A fundamental question of neuroscience is to determine whether neurons communicate by a rate or temporal code. Temporal coding implies that a single spiking neuron can replace hundreds of hidden units on a conventional neural net. SNNs define a neuron's current state as its potential (possibly modeled as a differential equation). An input pulse causes the potential to rise and then gradually decline. Encoding schemes can interpret these pulse sequences as a number, considering pulse frequency and pulse interval. Using the precise time of pulse occurrence, a neural network can consider more information and offer better computing properties. SNNs compute in the continuous domain. Such neurons test for activation only when their potentials reach a certain value. When a neuron is activated, it produces a signal that is passed to connected neurons, accordingly raising or lowering their potentials. The SNN approach produces a continuous output instead of the binary output of traditional ANNs. Pulse trains are not easily interpretable, hence the need for encoding schemes. However, a pulse train representation may be more suited for processing spatiotemporal data (or real-world sensory data classification). SNNs connect neurons only to nearby neurons so that they process input blocks separately (similar to CNN using filters). They consider time by encoding information as pulse trains so as not to lose information. This avoids the complexity of a recurrent neural network (RNN). Impulse neurons are more powerful computational units than traditional artificial neurons. SNNs are theoretically more powerful than so called "second-generation networks" defined as ANNs "based on computational units that apply activation function with a continuous set of possible output values to a weighted sum (or polynomial) of the inputs"; however, SNN training issues and hardware requirements limit their use. Although unsupervised biologically inspired learning methods are available such as Hebbian learning and STDP, no effective supervised training method is suitable for SNNs that can provide better performance than second-generation networks. Spike-based activation of SNNs is not differentiable, thus gradient descent-based backpropagation (BP) is not available. SNNs have much larger computational costs for simulating realistic neural models than traditional ANNs. Pulse-coupled neural networks (PCNN) are often confused with SNNs. A PCNN can be seen as a kind of SNN. Researchers are actively working on various topics. The first concerns differentiability. The expressions for both the forward- and backward-learning methods contain the derivative of the neural activation function which is not differentiable because a neuron's output is either 1 when it spikes, and 0 otherwise. This all-or-nothing behavior disrupts gradients and makes these neurons unsuitable for gradient-based optimization. Approaches to resolving it include: resorting to entirely biologically inspired local learning rules for the hidden units translating conventionally trained "rate-based" NNs to SNNs smoothing the network model to be continuously differentiable defining an SG (Surrogate Gradient) as a continuous relaxation of the real gradients The second concerns the optimization algorithm. Standard BP can be expensive in terms of computation, memory, and communication and may be poorly suited to the hardware that implements it (e.g., a computer, brain, or neuromorphic device). Incorporating additional neuron dynamics such as Spike Frequency Adaptation (SFA) is a notable advance, enhancing efficiency and computational power. These neurons sit between biological complexity and computational complexity. Originating from biological insights, SFA offers significant computational benefits by reducing power usage, especially in cases of repetitive or intense stimuli. This adaptation improves signal/noise clarity and introduces an elementary short-term memory at the neuron level, which in turn, improves accuracy and efficiency. This was mostly achieved using compartmental neuron models. The simpler versions are of neuron models with adaptive thresholds, are an indirect way of achieving SFA. It equips SNNs with improved learning capabilities, even with constrained synaptic plasticity, and elevates computational efficiency. This feature lessens the demand on network layers by decreasing the need for spike processing, thus lowering computational load and memory access time—essential aspects of neural computation. Moreover, SNNs utilizing neurons capable of SFA achieve levels of accuracy that rival those of conventional ANNs, while also requiring fewer neurons for comparable tasks. This efficiency streamlines the computational workflow and conserves space and energy, while maintaining technical integrity. High-performance deep spiking neural networks can operate with 0.3 spikes per neuron. == Applications == SNNs can in principle be applied to the same applications as traditional ANNs. In addition, SNNs can model the central nervous system of biological organisms, such as an insect seeking food without prior knowledge of the environment. Due to their relative realism, they can be used to study biological neural circuits. Starting with a hypothesis about the topology of a biological neuronal circuit and its functi

Iris flower data set

The Iris flower data set or Fisher's Iris data set is a multivariate data set used and made famous by the British statistician and biologist Ronald Fisher in his 1936 paper The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems as an example of linear discriminant analysis. It is sometimes called Anderson's Iris data set because Edgar Anderson collected the data to quantify the morphologic variation of Iris flowers of three related species. Two of the three species were collected in the Gaspé Peninsula "all from the same pasture, and picked on the same day and measured at the same time by the same person with the same apparatus". The data set consists of 50 samples from each of three species of Iris (Iris setosa, Iris virginica and Iris versicolor). Four features were measured from each sample: the length and the width of the sepals and petals, in centimeters. Based on the combination of these four features, Fisher developed a linear discriminant model to distinguish each species. Fisher's paper was published in the Annals of Eugenics (today the Annals of Human Genetics). == Use of the data set == Originally used as an example data set on which Fisher's linear discriminant analysis was applied, it became a typical test case for many statistical classification techniques in machine learning such as support vector machines. The use of this data set in cluster analysis however is not common, since the data set only contains two clusters with rather obvious separation. One of the clusters contains Iris setosa, while the other cluster contains both Iris virginica and Iris versicolor and is not separable without the species information Fisher used. This makes the data set a good example to explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised techniques in data mining: Fisher's linear discriminant model can only be obtained when the object species are known: class labels and clusters are not necessarily the same. Nevertheless, all three species of Iris are separable in the projection on the nonlinear and branching principal component. The data set is approximated by the closest tree with some penalty for the excessive number of nodes, bending and stretching. Then the so-called "metro map" is constructed. The data points are projected into the closest node. For each node the pie diagram of the projected points is prepared. The area of the pie is proportional to the number of the projected points. It is clear from the diagram (left) that the absolute majority of the samples of the different Iris species belong to the different nodes. Only a small fraction of Iris-virginica is mixed with Iris-versicolor (the mixed blue-green nodes in the diagram). Therefore, the three species of Iris (Iris setosa, Iris virginica and Iris versicolor) are separable by the unsupervising procedures of nonlinear principal component analysis. To discriminate them, it is sufficient just to select the corresponding nodes on the principal tree. == Data set == The data set contains a set of 150 records under five attributes: sepal length, sepal width, petal length, petal width and species. The iris data set is widely used as a beginner's data set for machine learning purposes. The data set is included in R base and Python in the machine learning library scikit-learn, so that users can access it without having to find a source for it. Several versions of the data set have been published. === R code illustrating usage === The example R code shown below reproduce the scatterplot displayed at the top of this article: === Python code illustrating usage === This code gives:

Amazon Q

Amazon Q is a chatbot developed by Amazon for enterprise use. Based on both Amazon Titan and GPT-5, it was announced on November 28, 2023. At launch, it was a part of the Amazon Web Services management console. Amazon CodeWhisperer is a part of Amazon Q Developer, a part of Amazon Q. == History == Amazon's business-focused chatbot Q was announced on November 28, 2023 in a preview, with a full version available at $20 per person per month. On July 19, 2025, the Amazon Q Visual Studio Code extension was compromised to delete the user's home directory. The issue was fixed on July 21. == Capabilities == Q can be prompted to summarize long documents and group chats, create charts, data analysis and write code. Q is also capable of accessing non-Amazon services. The chatbot is based on Amazon Titan and GPT-5, and uses the Amazon Bedrock repository of foundational models. It is part of the Amazon Web Services management console.

Universal approximation theorem

In the field of machine learning, the universal approximation theorems (UATs) state that neural networks with a certain structure can, in principle, approximate any continuous function to any desired degree of accuracy. These theorems provide a mathematical justification for using neural networks, assuring researchers that a sufficiently large or deep network can model the complex, non-linear relationships often found in real-world data. The best-known version of the theorem applies to feedforward networks with a single hidden layer. It states that if the layer's activation function is non-polynomial (which is true for common choices like the sigmoid function or ReLU), then the network can act as a "universal approximator." Universality is achieved by increasing the number of neurons in the hidden layer, making the network "wider." Other versions of the theorem show that universality can also be achieved by keeping the network's width fixed but increasing its number of layers, making it "deeper." These are existence theorems. They guarantee that a network with the right structure exists, but they do not provide a method for finding the network's parameters (training it), nor do they specify exactly how large the network must be for a given function. Finding a suitable network remains a practical challenge that is typically addressed with optimization algorithms like backpropagation. == Setup == Artificial neural networks are combinations of multiple simple mathematical functions that implement more complicated functions from (typically) real-valued vectors to real-valued vectors. The spaces of multivariate functions that can be implemented by a network are determined by the structure of the network, the set of simple functions, and its multiplicative parameters. A great deal of theoretical work has gone into characterizing these function spaces. Most universal approximation theorems are in one of two classes. The first quantifies the approximation capabilities of neural networks with an arbitrary number of artificial neurons ("arbitrary width" case) and the second focuses on the case with an arbitrary number of hidden layers, each containing a limited number of artificial neurons ("arbitrary depth" case). In addition to these two classes, there are also universal approximation theorems for neural networks with bounded number of hidden layers and a limited number of neurons in each layer ("bounded depth and bounded width" case). == History == === Arbitrary width === The first results concerned the arbitrary width case. Ken-ichi Funahashi (May 1989) showed that Rumelhart–Hinton–Williams type backpropagation networks possess universal approximation capability with a class of sigmoidal activation functions, extending the result to multi-output mappings as well. Kurt Hornik, Maxwell Stinchcombe, and Halbert White (July 1989) showed that multilayer feed-forward networks with as few as one hidden layer are universal approximators, provided that the activation function satisfies certain conditions. George Cybenko (December 1989) independently established a related result for sigmoid activation functions using functional-analytic methods. Hornik also showed in 1991 that it is not the specific choice of the activation function but rather the multilayer feed-forward architecture itself that gives neural networks the potential of being universal approximators. Moshe Leshno et al in 1993 and later Allan Pinkus in 1999 showed that the universal approximation property is equivalent to having a nonpolynomial activation function. === Arbitrary depth === The arbitrary depth case was also studied by a number of authors such as Gustaf Gripenberg in 2003, Dmitry Yarotsky, Zhou Lu et al in 2017, Boris Hanin and Mark Sellke in 2018 who focused on neural networks with ReLU activation function. In 2020, Patrick Kidger and Terry Lyons extended those results to neural networks with general activation functions such, e.g. tanh or GeLU. One special case of arbitrary depth is that each composition component comes from a finite set of mappings. In 2024, Cai constructed a finite set of mappings, named a vocabulary, such that any continuous function can be approximated by compositing a sequence from the vocabulary. This is similar to the concept of compositionality in linguistics, which is the idea that a finite vocabulary of basic elements can be combined via grammar to express an infinite range of meanings. === Bounded depth and bounded width === The bounded depth and bounded width case was first studied by Maiorov and Pinkus in 1999. They showed that there exists an analytic sigmoidal activation function such that two hidden layer neural networks with bounded number of units in hidden layers are universal approximators. In 2018, Guliyev and Ismailov constructed a smooth sigmoidal activation function providing universal approximation property for two hidden layer feedforward neural networks with fewer units in hidden layers. In 2018, they also constructed single hidden layer networks with bounded width that are still universal approximators for univariate functions. However, this does not apply for multivariable functions. In 2022, Shen et al. obtained precise quantitative information on the depth and width required to approximate a target function by deep and wide ReLU neural networks. === Quantitative bounds === The question of minimal possible width for universality was first studied in 2021, Park et al obtained the minimum width required for the universal approximation of Lp functions using feed-forward neural networks with ReLU as activation functions. Similar results that can be directly applied to residual neural networks were also obtained in the same year by Paulo Tabuada and Bahman Gharesifard using control-theoretic arguments. In 2023, Cai obtained the optimal minimum width bound for the universal approximation. For the arbitrary depth case, Leonie Papon and Anastasis Kratsios derived explicit depth estimates depending on the regularity of the target function and of the activation function. === Kolmogorov network === The Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem is similar in spirit. Indeed, certain neural network families can directly apply the Kolmogorov–Arnold theorem to yield a universal approximation theorem. Robert Hecht-Nielsen showed that a three-layer neural network can approximate any continuous multivariate function. This was extended to the discontinuous case by Vugar Ismailov. In 2024, Ziming Liu and co-authors showed a practical application. === Reservoir computing and quantum reservoir computing === In reservoir computing a sparse recurrent neural network with fixed weights equipped of fading memory and echo state property is followed by a trainable output layer. Its universality has been demonstrated separately for what concerns networks of rate neurons and spiking neurons, respectively. In 2024, the framework has been generalized and extended to quantum reservoirs where the reservoir is based on qubits defined over Hilbert spaces. === Variants === Variants include discontinuous activation functions, noncompact domains, certifiable networks, random neural networks, and alternative network architectures and topologies. The universal approximation property of width-bounded networks has been studied as a dual of classical universal approximation results on depth-bounded networks. For input dimension d x {\displaystyle d_{x}} and output dimension d y {\displaystyle d_{y}} the minimum width required for the universal approximation of the Lp functions is exactly m a x { d x + 1 , d y } {\displaystyle max\{d_{x}+1,d_{y}\}} (for a ReLU network). More generally this also holds if both ReLU and a threshold activation function are used. Universal function approximation on graphs (or rather on graph isomorphism classes) by popular graph convolutional neural networks (GCNs or GNNs) can be made as discriminative as the Weisfeiler–Leman graph isomorphism test. In 2020, a universal approximation theorem result was established by Brüel-Gabrielsson, showing that graph representation with certain injective properties is sufficient for universal function approximation on bounded graphs and restricted universal function approximation on unbounded graphs, with an accompanying O ( | V | ⋅ | E | ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\left|V\right|\cdot \left|E\right|)} -runtime method that performed at state of the art on a collection of benchmarks (where V {\displaystyle V} and E {\displaystyle E} are the sets of nodes and edges of the graph respectively). There are also a variety of results between non-Euclidean spaces and other commonly used architectures and, more generally, algorithmically generated sets of functions, such as the convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture, radial basis functions, or neural networks with specific properties. == Arbitrary-width case == A universal approximation theorem formally states that a family of neural network funct