A common data model (CDM) can refer to any standardised data model which allows for data and information exchange between different applications and data sources. Common data models aim to standardise logical infrastructure so that related applications can "operate on and share the same data", and can be seen as a way to "organize data from many sources that are in different formats into a standard structure". A common data model has been described as one of the components of a "strong information system". A standardised common data model has also been described as a typical component of a well designed agile application besides a common communication protocol. Providing a single common data model within an organisation is one of the typical tasks of a data warehouse. == Examples of common data models == === Border crossings === X-trans.eu was a cross-border pilot project between the Free State of Bavaria (Germany) and Upper Austria with the aim of developing a faster procedure for the application and approval of cross-border large-capacity transports. The portal was based on a common data model that contained all the information required for approval. === Climate data === The Climate Data Store Common Data Model is a common data model set up by the Copernicus Climate Change Service for harmonising essential climate variables from different sources and data providers. === General information technology === Within service-oriented architecture, S-RAMP is a specification released by HP, IBM, Software AG, TIBCO, and Red Hat which defines a common data model for SOA repositories as well as an interaction protocol to facilitate the use of common tooling and sharing of data. Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) is an open standard for inter-operation of different content management systems over the internet, and provides a common data model for typed files and folders used with version control. The NetCDF software libraries for array-oriented scientific data implements a common data model called the NetCDF Java common data model, which consists of three layers built on top of each other to add successively richer semantics. === Health === Within genomic and medical data, the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) research program established under the U.S. National Institutes of Health has created a common data model for claims and electronic health records which can accommodate data from different sources around the world. PCORnet, which was developed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, is another common data model for health data including electronic health records and patient claims. The Sentinel Common Data Model was initially started as Mini-Sentinel in 2008. It is used by the Sentinel Initiative of the USA's Food and Drug Administration. The Generalized Data Model was first published in 2019. It was designed to be a stand-alone data model as well as to allow for further transformation into other data models (e.g., OMOP, PCORNet, Sentinel). It has a hierarchical structure to flexibly capture relationships among data elements. The JANUS clinical trial data repository also provides a common data model which is based on the SDTM standard to represent clinical data submitted to regulatory agencies, such as tabulation datasets, patient profiles, listings, etc. === Logistics === SX000i is a specification developed jointly by the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) and the American Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) to provide information, guidance and instructions to ensure compatibility and the commonality. The associated SX002D specification contains a common data model. === Microsoft Common Data Model === The Microsoft Common Data Model is a collection of many standardised extensible data schemas with entities, attributes, semantic metadata, and relationships, which represent commonly used concepts and activities in various businesses areas. It is maintained by Microsoft and its partners, and is published on GitHub. Microsoft's Common Data Model is used amongst others in Microsoft Dataverse and with various Microsoft Power Platform and Microsoft Dynamics 365 services. === Rail transport === RailTopoModel is a common data model for the railway sector. === Other === There are many more examples of various common data models for different uses published by different sources.
Statistical shape analysis
Statistical shape analysis is an analysis of the geometrical properties of some given set of shapes by statistical methods. For instance, it could be used to quantify differences between male and female gorilla skull shapes, normal and pathological bone shapes, leaf outlines with and without herbivory by insects, etc. Important aspects of shape analysis are to obtain a measure of distance between shapes, to estimate mean shapes from (possibly random) samples, to estimate shape variability within samples, to perform clustering and to test for differences between shapes. One of the main methods used is principal component analysis (PCA). Statistical shape analysis has applications in various fields, including medical imaging, computer vision, computational anatomy, sensor measurement, and geographical profiling. == Landmark-based techniques == In the point distribution model, a shape is determined by a finite set of coordinate points, known as landmark points. These landmark points often correspond to important identifiable features such as the corners of the eyes. Once the points are collected some form of registration is undertaken. This can be a baseline methods used by Fred Bookstein for geometric morphometrics in anthropology. Or an approach like Procrustes analysis which finds an average shape. David George Kendall investigated the statistical distribution of the shape of triangles, and represented each triangle by a point on a sphere. He used this distribution on the sphere to investigate ley lines and whether three stones were more likely to be co-linear than might be expected. Statistical distribution like the Kent distribution can be used to analyse the distribution of such spaces. Alternatively, shapes can be represented by curves or surfaces representing their contours, by the spatial region they occupy. == Shape deformations == Differences between shapes can be quantified by investigating deformations transforming one shape into another. In particular a diffeomorphism preserves smoothness in the deformation. This was pioneered in D'Arcy Thompson's On Growth and Form before the advent of computers. Deformations can be interpreted as resulting from a force applied to the shape. Mathematically, a deformation is defined as a mapping from a shape x to a shape y by a transformation function Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } , i.e., y = Φ ( x ) {\displaystyle y=\Phi (x)} . Given a notion of size of deformations, the distance between two shapes can be defined as the size of the smallest deformation between these shapes. Diffeomorphometry is the focus on comparison of shapes and forms with a metric structure based on diffeomorphisms, and is central to the field of Computational anatomy. Diffeomorphic registration, introduced in the 90's, is now an important player with existing codes bases organized around ANTS, DARTEL, DEMONS, LDDMM, StationaryLDDMM, and FastLDDMM are examples of actively used computational codes for constructing correspondences between coordinate systems based on sparse features and dense images. Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is an important technology built on many of these principles. Methods based on diffeomorphic flows are also used. For example, deformations could be diffeomorphisms of the ambient space, resulting in the LDDMM (Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping) framework for shape comparison.
Non-negative matrix factorization
Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF or NNMF), also non-negative matrix approximation is a group of algorithms in multivariate analysis and linear algebra where a matrix V is factorized into (usually) two matrices W and H, with the property that all three matrices have no negative elements. This non-negativity makes the resulting matrices easier to inspect. Also, in applications such as processing of audio spectrograms or muscular activity, non-negativity is inherent to the data being considered. Since the problem is not exactly solvable in general, it is commonly approximated numerically. NMF finds applications in such fields as astronomy, computer vision, document clustering, missing data imputation, chemometrics, audio signal processing, recommender systems, and bioinformatics. == History == In chemometrics non-negative matrix factorization has a long history under the name "self modeling curve resolution". In this framework the vectors in the right matrix are continuous curves rather than discrete vectors. Also early work on non-negative matrix factorizations was performed by a Finnish group of researchers in the 1990s under the name positive matrix factorization. It became more widely known as non-negative matrix factorization after Lee and Seung investigated the properties of the algorithm and published some simple and useful algorithms for two types of factorizations. == Background == Let matrix V be the product of the matrices W and H, V = W H . {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} =\mathbf {W} \mathbf {H} \,.} Matrix multiplication can be implemented as computing the column vectors of V as linear combinations of the column vectors in W using coefficients supplied by columns of H. That is, each column of V can be computed as follows: v i = W h i , {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} _{i}=\mathbf {W} \mathbf {h} _{i}\,,} where vi is the i-th column vector of the product matrix V and hi is the i-th column vector of the matrix H. When multiplying matrices, the dimensions of the factor matrices may be significantly lower than those of the product matrix and it is this property that forms the basis of NMF. NMF generates factors with significantly reduced dimensions compared to the original matrix. For example, if V is an m × n matrix, W is an m × p matrix, and H is a p × n matrix then p can be significantly less than both m and n. Here is an example based on a text-mining application: Let the input matrix (the matrix to be factored) be V with 10000 rows and 500 columns where words are in rows and documents are in columns. That is, we have 500 documents indexed by 10000 words. It follows that a column vector v in V represents a document. Assume we ask the algorithm to find 10 features in order to generate a features matrix W with 10000 rows and 10 columns and a coefficients matrix H with 10 rows and 500 columns. The product of W and H is a matrix with 10000 rows and 500 columns, the same shape as the input matrix V and, if the factorization worked, it is a reasonable approximation to the input matrix V. From the treatment of matrix multiplication above it follows that each column in the product matrix WH is a linear combination of the 10 column vectors in the features matrix W with coefficients supplied by the coefficients matrix H. This last point is the basis of NMF because we can consider each original document in our example as being built from a small set of hidden features. NMF generates these features. It is useful to think of each feature (column vector) in the features matrix W as a document archetype comprising a set of words where each word's cell value defines the word's rank in the feature: The higher a word's cell value the higher the word's rank in the feature. A column in the coefficients matrix H represents an original document with a cell value defining the document's rank for a feature. We can now reconstruct a document (column vector) from our input matrix by a linear combination of our features (column vectors in W) where each feature is weighted by the feature's cell value from the document's column in H. == Clustering property == NMF has an inherent clustering property, i.e., it automatically clusters the columns of input data V = ( v 1 , … , v n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} =(v_{1},\dots ,v_{n})} . More specifically, the approximation of V {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} } by V ≃ W H {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} \simeq \mathbf {W} \mathbf {H} } is achieved by finding W {\displaystyle W} and H {\displaystyle H} that minimize the error function (using the Frobenius norm) ‖ V − W H ‖ F , {\displaystyle \left\|V-WH\right\|_{F},} subject to W ≥ 0 , H ≥ 0. {\displaystyle W\geq 0,H\geq 0.} , If we furthermore impose an orthogonality constraint on H {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} } , i.e. H H T = I {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} \mathbf {H} ^{T}=I} , then the above minimization is mathematically equivalent to the minimization of K-means clustering. Furthermore, the computed H {\displaystyle H} gives the cluster membership, i.e., if H k j > H i j {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} _{kj}>\mathbf {H} _{ij}} for all i ≠ k, this suggests that the input data v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} belongs to k {\displaystyle k} -th cluster. The computed W {\displaystyle W} gives the cluster centroids, i.e., the k {\displaystyle k} -th column gives the cluster centroid of k {\displaystyle k} -th cluster. This centroid's representation can be significantly enhanced by convex NMF. When the orthogonality constraint H H T = I {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} \mathbf {H} ^{T}=I} is not explicitly imposed, the orthogonality holds to a large extent, and the clustering property holds too. When the error function to be used is Kullback–Leibler divergence, NMF is identical to the probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA), a popular document clustering method. == Types == === Approximate non-negative matrix factorization === Usually the number of columns of W and the number of rows of H in NMF are selected so the product WH will become an approximation to V. The full decomposition of V then amounts to the two non-negative matrices W and H as well as a residual U, such that: V = WH + U. The elements of the residual matrix can either be negative or positive. When W and H are smaller than V they become easier to store and manipulate. Another reason for factorizing V into smaller matrices W and H, is that if one's goal is to approximately represent the elements of V by significantly less data, then one has to infer some latent structure in the data. === Convex non-negative matrix factorization === In standard NMF, matrix factor W ∈ R+m × k， i.e., W can be anything in that space. Convex NMF restricts the columns of W to convex combinations of the input data vectors ( v 1 , … , v n ) {\displaystyle (v_{1},\dots ,v_{n})} . This greatly improves the quality of data representation of W. Furthermore, the resulting matrix factor H becomes more sparse and orthogonal. === Nonnegative rank factorization === In case the nonnegative rank of V is equal to its actual rank, V = WH is called a nonnegative rank factorization (NRF). The problem of finding the NRF of V, if it exists, is known to be NP-hard. === Different cost functions and regularizations === There are different types of non-negative matrix factorizations. The different types arise from using different cost functions for measuring the divergence between V and WH and possibly by regularization of the W and/or H matrices. Two simple divergence functions studied by Lee and Seung are the squared error (or Frobenius norm) and an extension of the Kullback–Leibler divergence to positive matrices (the original Kullback–Leibler divergence is defined on probability distributions). Each divergence leads to a different NMF algorithm, usually minimizing the divergence using iterative update rules. The factorization problem in the squared error version of NMF may be stated as: Given a matrix V {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} } find nonnegative matrices W and H that minimize the function F ( W , H ) = ‖ V − W H ‖ F 2 {\displaystyle F(\mathbf {W} ,\mathbf {H} )=\left\|\mathbf {V} -\mathbf {WH} \right\|_{F}^{2}} Another type of NMF for images is based on the total variation norm. When L1 regularization (akin to Lasso) is added to NMF with the mean squared error cost function, the resulting problem may be called non-negative sparse coding due to the similarity to the sparse coding problem, although it may also still be referred to as NMF. === Online NMF === Many standard NMF algorithms analyze all the data together; i.e., the whole matrix is available from the start. This may be unsatisfactory in applications where there are too many data to fit into memory or where the data are provided in streaming fashion. One such use is for collaborative filtering in recommendation systems, where there may be many users and many items to recommend, and it would be inefficient to recalculate everything when one user or one item is added to the system. The cost function for o
Charge based boundary element fast multipole method
The charge-based formulation of the boundary element method (BEM) is a dimensionality reduction numerical technique that is used to model quasistatic electromagnetic phenomena in highly complex conducting media (targeting, e.g., the human brain) with a very large (up to approximately 1 billion) number of unknowns. The charge-based BEM solves an integral equation of the potential theory written in terms of the induced surface charge density. This formulation is naturally combined with fast multipole method (FMM) acceleration, and the entire method is known as charge-based BEM-FMM. The combination of BEM and FMM is a common technique in different areas of computational electromagnetics and, in the context of bioelectromagnetism, it provides improvements over the finite element method. == Historical development == Along with more common electric potential-based BEM, the quasistatic charge-based BEM, derived in terms of the single-layer (charge) density, for a single-compartment medium has been known in the potential theory since the beginning of the 20th century. For multi-compartment conducting media, the surface charge density formulation first appeared in discretized form (for faceted interfaces) in the 1964 paper by Gelernter and Swihart. A subsequent continuous form, including time-dependent and dielectric effects, appeared in the 1967 paper by Barnard, Duck, and Lynn. The charge-based BEM has also been formulated for conducting, dielectric, and magnetic media, and used in different applications. In 2009, Greengard et al. successfully applied the charge-based BEM with fast multipole acceleration to molecular electrostatics of dielectrics. A similar approach to realistic modeling of the human brain with multiple conducting compartments was first described by Makarov et al. in 2018. Along with this, the BEM-based multilevel fast multipole method has been widely used in radar and antenna studies at microwave frequencies as well as in acoustics. == Physical background - surface charges in biological media == The charge-based BEM is based on the concept of an impressed (or primary) electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} and a secondary electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} . The impressed field is usually known a priori or is trivial to find. For the human brain, the impressed electric field can be classified as one of the following: A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed density of EEG or MEG current sources in a homogeneous infinite medium with the conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } at the source location; An instantaneous solenoidal field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of an induction coil obtained from Faraday's law of induction in a homogeneous infinite medium (air), when transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) problems are concerned; A surface field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed surface current density J i = σ E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {J} ^{i}=\sigma \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of current electrodes injecting electric current at a boundary of a compartment with conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } when transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) or deep brain stimulation (DBS) are concerned; A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of charges deposited on voltage electrodes for tDCS or DBS. This specific problem requires a coupled treatment since these charges will depend on the environment; In application to multiscale modeling, a field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} obtained from any other macroscopic numerical solution in a small (mesoscale or microscale) spatial domain within the brain. For example, a constant field can be used. When the impressed field is "turned on", free charges located within a conducting volume D immediately begin to redistribute and accumulate at the boundaries (interfaces) of regions of different conductivity in D. A surface charge density ρ ( r ) {\displaystyle \rho (\mathbf {r} )} appears on the conductivity interfaces. This charge density induces a secondary conservative electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} following Coulomb's law. One example is a human under a direct current powerline with the known field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} directed down. The superior surface of the human's conducting body will be charged negatively while its inferior portion is charged positively. These surface charges create a secondary electric field that effectively cancels or blocks the primary field everywhere in the body so that no current will flow within the body under DC steady state conditions. Another example is a human head with electrodes attached. At any conductivity interface with a normal vector n {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} } pointing from an "inside" (-) compartment of conductivity σ − {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}} to an "outside" (+) compartment of conductivity σ + {\displaystyle \sigma ^{+}} , Kirchhoff's current law requires continuity of the normal component of the electric current density. This leads to the interfacial boundary condition in the form for every facet at a triangulated interface. As long as σ ± {\displaystyle \sigma ^{\pm }} are different from each other, the two normal components of the electric field, E ± ⋅ n {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{\pm }\cdot \mathbf {n} } , must also be different. Such a jump across the interface is only possible when a sheet of surface charge exists at that interface. Thus, if an electric current or voltage is applied, the surface charge density follows. The goal of the numerical analysis is to find the unknown surface charge distribution and thus the total electric field E = E i + E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =\mathbf {E} ^{i}+\mathbf {E} ^{s}} (and the total electric potential if required) anywhere in space. == System of equations for surface charges == Below, a derivation is given based on Gauss's law and Coulomb's law. All conductivity interfaces, denoted by S, are discretized into planar triangular facets t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} with centers r m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}} . Assume that an m-th facet with the normal vector n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} _{m}} and area A m {\displaystyle A_{m}} carries a uniform surface charge density ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . If a volumetric tetrahedral mesh were present, the charged facets would belong to tetrahedra with different conductivity values. We first compute the electric field E m + {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}} at the point r m + δ n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}+\delta \mathbf {n} _{m}} , for δ → 0 + {\displaystyle \delta \rightarrow 0^{+}} i.e., just outside facet 𝑚 at its center. This field contains three contributions: The continuous impressed electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} itself; An electric field of the m-th charged facet itself. Very close to the facet, it can be approximated as the electric field of an infinite sheet of uniform surface charge ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . By Gauss's law, it is given by + ρ m / 2 ε 0 ⋅ n m {\displaystyle +\rho _{m}/2\varepsilon _{0}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} where ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} is a background electrical permittivity; An electric field generated by all other facets t n {\displaystyle t_{n}} , which we approximate as point charges of charge A n ρ n {\displaystyle A_{n}\rho _{n}} at each center r n {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{n}} . A similar treatment holds for the electric field E m − {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}} just inside facet 𝑚, but the electric field of the flat sheet of charge changes its sign. Using Coulomb's law to calculate the contribution of facets different from t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} , we find From this equation, we see that the normal component of the electric field indeed undergoes a jump through the charged interface. This is equivalent to a jump relation of the potential theory. As a second step, the two expressions for E m ± {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{\pm }} are substituted into the interfacial boundary condition σ − E m − ⋅ n m = σ + E m + ⋅ n m {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}=\sigma ^{+}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} , applied to every facet 𝑚. This operation leads to a system of linear equations for unknown charge densities ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} which solves the problem: where K m = σ − − σ + σ − + σ + {\displaystyle K_{m}={\frac {\sigma ^{-}-\sigma ^{+}}{\sigma ^{-}+\sigma ^{+}}}} is the electric conductivity contrast at the m-th facet. The normalization constant ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} will cancel out after the solution is substituted in the expression for E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} and becomes redundant. == Application of fast multipole method == For modern characterizations of brain topologies with ever-increasing levels of complexity, the above system of equations for ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} is very large; it is t
Multi-label classification
In machine learning, multi-label classification or multi-output classification is a variant of the classification problem where multiple nonexclusive labels may be assigned to each instance. Multi-label classification is a generalization of multiclass classification, which is the single-label problem of categorizing instances into precisely one of several (greater than or equal to two) classes. In the multi-label problem the labels are nonexclusive and there is no constraint on how many of the classes the instance can be assigned to. The formulation of multi-label learning was first introduced by Shen et al. in the context of Semantic Scene Classification, and later gained popularity across various areas of machine learning. Formally, multi-label classification is the problem of finding a model that maps inputs x to binary vectors y; that is, it assigns a value of 0 or 1 for each element (label) in y. == Problem transformation methods == Several problem transformation methods exist for multi-label classification, and can be roughly broken down into: === Transformation into binary classification problems === The baseline approach, called the binary relevance method, amounts to independently training one binary classifier for each label. Given an unseen sample, the combined model then predicts all labels for this sample for which the respective classifiers predict a positive result. Although this method of dividing the task into multiple binary tasks may resemble superficially the one-vs.-all (OvA) and one-vs.-rest (OvR) methods for multiclass classification, it is essentially different from both, because a single classifier under binary relevance deals with a single label, without any regard to other labels whatsoever. A classifier chain is an alternative method for transforming a multi-label classification problem into several binary classification problems. It differs from binary relevance in that labels are predicted sequentially, and the output of all previous classifiers (i.e. positive or negative for a particular label) are input as features to subsequent classifiers. Classifier chains have been applied, for instance, in HIV drug resistance prediction. Bayesian network has also been applied to optimally order classifiers in Classifier chains. In case of transforming the problem to multiple binary classifications, the likelihood function reads L = ∏ i = 1 n ( ∏ k ( ∏ j k ( p k , j k ( x i ) δ y i , k , j k ) ) ) {\displaystyle L=\prod _{i=1}^{n}(\prod _{k}(\prod _{j_{k}}(p_{k,j_{k}}(x_{i})^{\delta _{y_{i,k},j_{k}}})))} where index i {\displaystyle i} runs over the samples, index k {\displaystyle k} runs over the labels, j k {\displaystyle j_{k}} indicates the binary outcomes 0 or 1, δ a , b {\displaystyle \delta _{a,b}} indicates the Kronecker delta, y i , k ∈ 0 , 1 {\displaystyle y_{i,k}\in {0,1}} indicates the multiple hot encoded labels of sample i {\displaystyle i} . === Transformation into multi-class classification problem === The label powerset (LP) transformation creates one binary classifier for every label combination present in the training set. For example, if possible labels for an example were A, B, and C, the label powerset representation of this problem is a multi-class classification problem with the classes [0 0 0], [1 0 0], [0 1 0], [0 0 1], [1 1 0], [1 0 1], [0 1 1], and [1 1 1] where for example [1 0 1] denotes an example where labels A and C are present and label B is absent. === Ensemble methods === A set of multi-class classifiers can be used to create a multi-label ensemble classifier. For a given example, each classifier outputs a single class (corresponding to a single label in the multi-label problem). These predictions are then combined by an ensemble method, usually a voting scheme where every class that receives a requisite percentage of votes from individual classifiers (often referred to as the discrimination threshold) is predicted as a present label in the multi-label output. However, more complex ensemble methods exist, such as committee machines. Another variation is the random k-labelsets (RAKEL) algorithm, which uses multiple LP classifiers, each trained on a random subset of the actual labels; label prediction is then carried out by a voting scheme. A set of multi-label classifiers can be used in a similar way to create a multi-label ensemble classifier. In this case, each classifier votes once for each label it predicts rather than for a single label. == Adapted algorithms == Some classification algorithms/models have been adapted to the multi-label task, without requiring problem transformations. Examples of these including for multi-label data are k-nearest neighbors: the ML-kNN algorithm extends the k-NN classifier to multi-label data. decision trees: "Clare" is an adapted C4.5 algorithm for multi-label classification; the modification involves the entropy calculations. MMC, MMDT, and SSC refined MMDT, can classify multi-labeled data based on multi-valued attributes without transforming the attributes into single-values. They are also named multi-valued and multi-labeled decision tree classification methods. kernel methods for vector output neural networks: BP-MLL is an adaptation of the popular back-propagation algorithm for multi-label learning. == Learning paradigms == Based on learning paradigms, the existing multi-label classification techniques can be classified into batch learning and online machine learning. Batch learning algorithms require all the data samples to be available beforehand. It trains the model using the entire training data and then predicts the test sample using the found relationship. The online learning algorithms, on the other hand, incrementally build their models in sequential iterations. In iteration t, an online algorithm receives a sample, xt and predicts its label(s) ŷt using the current model; the algorithm then receives yt, the true label(s) of xt and updates its model based on the sample-label pair: (xt, yt). == Multi-label stream classification == Data streams are possibly infinite sequences of data that continuously and rapidly grow over time. Multi-label stream classification (MLSC) is the version of multi-label classification task that takes place in data streams. It is sometimes also called online multi-label classification. The difficulties of multi-label classification (exponential number of possible label sets, capturing dependencies between labels) are combined with difficulties of data streams (time and memory constraints, addressing infinite stream with finite means, concept drifts). Many MLSC methods resort to ensemble methods in order to increase their predictive performance and deal with concept drifts. Below are the most widely used ensemble methods in the literature: Online Bagging (OzaBagging)-based methods: Observing the probability of having K many of a certain data point in a bootstrap sample is approximately Poisson(1) for big datasets, each incoming data instance in a data stream can be weighted proportional to Poisson(1) distribution to mimic bootstrapping in an online setting. This is called Online Bagging (OzaBagging). Many multi-label methods that use Online Bagging are proposed in the literature, each of which utilizes different problem transformation methods. EBR, ECC, EPS, EBRT, EBMT, ML-Random Rules are examples of such methods. ADWIN Bagging-based methods: Online Bagging methods for MLSC are sometimes combined with explicit concept drift detection mechanisms such as ADWIN (Adaptive Window). ADWIN keeps a variable-sized window to detect changes in the distribution of the data, and improves the ensemble by resetting the components that perform poorly when there is a drift in the incoming data. Generally, the letter 'a' is used as a subscript in the name of such ensembles to indicate the usage of ADWIN change detector. EaBR, EaCC, EaHTPS are examples of such multi-label ensembles. GOOWE-ML-based methods: Interpreting the relevance scores of each component of the ensemble as vectors in the label space and solving a least squares problem at the end of each batch, Geometrically-Optimum Online-Weighted Ensemble for Multi-label Classification (GOOWE-ML) is proposed. The ensemble tries to minimize the distance between the weighted prediction of its components and the ground truth vector for each instance over a batch. Unlike Online Bagging and ADWIN Bagging, GOOWE-ML utilizes a weighted voting scheme where better performing components of the ensemble are given more weight. The GOOWE-ML ensemble grows over time, and the lowest weight component is replaced by a new component when it is full at the end of a batch. GOBR, GOCC, GOPS, GORT are the proposed GOOWE-ML-based multi-label ensembles. Multiple Windows : Here, BR models that use a sliding window are replaced with two windows for each label, one for relevant and one for non-relevant examples. Instances are oversampled or undersampled according to a load factor that is kept
Creately
Creately is a SaaS visual collaboration tool with diagramming and design capabilities designed by Cinergix. The application is mostly known for creating flowcharts, organization charts, project charts, UML diagrams, mind maps, and other business visuals. == History == The initial beta version of Creately was released by Chandika Jayasundara. Hiraash Thawfeek, Nick Foster and Charanjit Singh joined the project in the same year. Chandika Jayasundara is CEO of Cinergix. The headquarters of the company is located at Mentone, Victoria, Australia. == Features and reception == Creately provides predefined templates and diagram elements for incorporating in the projects. It provides drag and drop feature with which both predefined and custom made shapes can be included to build the desired diagram while the same workspace can be shared with multiple persons for collaboration. Some experts have reviewed the application by commenting on its lacking in accessible integration options as its downside. The company claims Creately to have integration feature with Slack, Confluence while not having the integration with Zapier and OneDrive yet. It is compatible with Google Drive and Dropbox. The software is available as both freemium and paid option.
Large margin nearest neighbor
Large margin nearest neighbor (LMNN) classification is a statistical machine learning algorithm for metric learning. It learns a pseudometric designed for k-nearest neighbor classification. The algorithm is based on semidefinite programming, a sub-class of convex optimization. The goal of supervised learning (more specifically classification) is to learn a decision rule that can categorize data instances into pre-defined classes. The k-nearest neighbor rule assumes a training data set of labeled instances (i.e. the classes are known). It classifies a new data instance with the class obtained from the majority vote of the k closest (labeled) training instances. Closeness is measured with a pre-defined metric. Large margin nearest neighbors is an algorithm that learns this global (pseudo-)metric in a supervised fashion to improve the classification accuracy of the k-nearest neighbor rule. == Setup == The main intuition behind LMNN is to learn a pseudometric under which all data instances in the training set are surrounded by at least k instances that share the same class label. If this is achieved, the leave-one-out error (a special case of cross validation) is minimized. Let the training data consist of a data set D = { ( x → 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x → n , y n ) } ⊂ R d × C {\displaystyle D=\{({\vec {x}}_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,({\vec {x}}_{n},y_{n})\}\subset R^{d}\times C} , where the set of possible class categories is C = { 1 , … , c } {\displaystyle C=\{1,\dots ,c\}} . The algorithm learns a pseudometric of the type d ( x → i , x → j ) = ( x → i − x → j ) ⊤ M ( x → i − x → j ) {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})=({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})^{\top }\mathbf {M} ({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})} . For d ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle d(\cdot ,\cdot )} to be well defined, the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } needs to be positive semi-definite. The Euclidean metric is a special case, where M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is the identity matrix. This generalization is often (falsely) referred to as Mahalanobis metric. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of the metric under varying M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } . The two circles show the set of points with equal distance to the center x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . In the Euclidean case this set is a circle, whereas under the modified (Mahalanobis) metric it becomes an ellipsoid. The algorithm distinguishes between two types of special data points: target neighbors and impostors. === Target neighbors === Target neighbors are selected before learning. Each instance x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} has exactly k {\displaystyle k} different target neighbors within D {\displaystyle D} , which all share the same class label y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} . The target neighbors are the data points that should become nearest neighbors under the learned metric. Let us denote the set of target neighbors for a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} as N i {\displaystyle N_{i}} . === Impostors === An impostor of a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} is another data point x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} with a different class label (i.e. y i ≠ y j {\displaystyle y_{i}\neq y_{j}} ) which is one of the nearest neighbors of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . During learning the algorithm tries to minimize the number of impostors for all data instances in the training set. == Algorithm == Large margin nearest neighbors optimizes the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } with the help of semidefinite programming. The objective is twofold: For every data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} , the target neighbors should be close and the impostors should be far away. Figure 1 shows the effect of such an optimization on an illustrative example. The learned metric causes the input vector x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} to be surrounded by training instances of the same class. If it was a test point, it would be classified correctly under the k = 3 {\displaystyle k=3} nearest neighbor rule. The first optimization goal is achieved by minimizing the average distance between instances and their target neighbors ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})} . The second goal is achieved by penalizing distances to impostors x → l {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{l}} that are less than one unit further away than target neighbors x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} (and therefore pushing them out of the local neighborhood of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} ). The resulting value to be minimized can be stated as: ∑ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i [ d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ] + {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}[d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})]_{+}} With a hinge loss function [ ⋅ ] + = max ( ⋅ , 0 ) {\textstyle [\cdot ]_{+}=\max(\cdot ,0)} , which ensures that impostor proximity is not penalized when outside the margin. The margin of exactly one unit fixes the scale of the matrix M {\displaystyle M} . Any alternative choice c > 0 {\displaystyle c>0} would result in a rescaling of M {\displaystyle M} by a factor of 1 / c {\displaystyle 1/c} . The final optimization problem becomes: min M ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) + λ ∑ i , j , l ξ i j l {\displaystyle \min _{\mathbf {M} }\sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+\lambda \sum _{i,j,l}\xi _{ijl}} ∀ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i {\displaystyle \forall _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}} d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ≤ ξ i j l {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})\leq \xi _{ijl}} ξ i j l ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}\geq 0} M ⪰ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} \succeq 0} The hyperparameter λ > 0 {\textstyle \lambda >0} is some positive constant (typically set through cross-validation). Here the variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} (together with two types of constraints) replace the term in the cost function. They play a role similar to slack variables to absorb the extent of violations of the impostor constraints. The last constraint ensures that M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is positive semi-definite. The optimization problem is an instance of semidefinite programming (SDP). Although SDPs tend to suffer from high computational complexity, this particular SDP instance can be solved very efficiently due to the underlying geometric properties of the problem. In particular, most impostor constraints are naturally satisfied and do not need to be enforced during runtime (i.e. the set of variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} is sparse). A particularly well suited solver technique is the working set method, which keeps a small set of constraints that are actively enforced and monitors the remaining (likely satisfied) constraints only occasionally to ensure correctness. == Extensions and efficient solvers == LMNN was extended to multiple local metrics in the 2008 paper. This extension significantly improves the classification error, but involves a more expensive optimization problem. In their 2009 publication in the Journal of Machine Learning Research, Weinberger and Saul derive an efficient solver for the semi-definite program. It can learn a metric for the MNIST handwritten digit data set in several hours, involving billions of pairwise constraints. An open source Matlab implementation is freely available at the authors web page. Kumal et al. extended the algorithm to incorporate local invariances to multivariate polynomial transformations and improved regularization.