In computer science and operations research, a memetic algorithm (MA) is an extension of an evolutionary algorithm (EA) that aims to accelerate the evolutionary search for the optimum. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. An MA uses one or more suitable heuristics or local search techniques to improve the quality of solutions generated by the EA and to speed up the search. The effects on the reliability of finding the global optimum depend on both the use case and the design of the MA. Memetic algorithms represent one of the recent growing areas of research in evolutionary computation. The term MA is now widely used as a synergy of evolutionary or any population-based approach with separate individual learning or local improvement procedures for problem search. Quite often, MAs are also referred to in the literature as Baldwinian evolutionary algorithms, Lamarckian EAs, cultural algorithms, or genetic local search. == Introduction == Inspired by both Darwinian principles of natural evolution and Dawkins' notion of a meme, the term memetic algorithm (MA) was introduced by Pablo Moscato in his technical report in 1989 where he viewed MA as being close to a form of population-based hybrid genetic algorithm (GA) coupled with an individual learning procedure capable of performing local refinements. The metaphorical parallels, on the one hand, to Darwinian evolution and, on the other hand, between memes and domain specific (local search) heuristics are captured within memetic algorithms thus rendering a methodology that balances well between generality and problem specificity. This two-stage nature makes them a special case of dual-phase evolution. The basic idea behind an MA is to combine the advantages of a global search performed by an EA (or another global search method) with the local refinement provided by one or more local search techniques, while avoiding their drawbacks. The main disadvantage of EAs is that, when searching in the vicinity of an optimum, they perform poorly in determining the exact position of that optimum. The downside of local search methods lies simply in the locality of their search relative to the chosen starting point. The combination of these two classes of methods aims to merge global and local search so that the advantages of both approaches can be leveraged. The idea of this approach can be illustrated by the search for the highest mountain in the Alps. A local search method would climb one of the mountains near the starting point, ignoring Mont Blanc as long as the starting point is not in its vicinity. An EA, on the other hand, will likely only find Mont Blanc after examining many other mountains, valleys, and hills, and then it will have difficulty identifying the summit cross. From the perspective of an MA’s global search procedure, however, only the summits of hills and mountains are seen, and its search is limited to finding the best summit. The open question is whether the additional effort required for the local search is worthwhile. This depends not only on the design of the MA but also on the specific application and the local search methods used. In the context of complex optimization, many different instantiations of memetic algorithms have been reported across a wide range of application domains, in general, converging to high-quality solutions more efficiently than their conventional evolutionary counterparts. In general, using the ideas of memetics within a computational framework is called memetic computing or memetic computation (MC). With MC, the traits of universal Darwinism are more appropriately captured. Viewed in this perspective, MA is a more constrained notion of MC. More specifically, MA covers one area of MC, in particular dealing with areas of evolutionary algorithms that marry other deterministic refinement techniques for solving optimization problems. MC extends the notion of memes to cover conceptual entities of knowledge-enhanced procedures or representations. == Theoretical Background == The no-free-lunch theorems of optimization and search state that all optimization strategies are equally effective with respect to the set of all optimization problems. Conversely, this means that one can expect the following: The more efficiently an algorithm solves a problem or class of problems, the less general it is and the more problem-specific knowledge it builds on. This insight leads directly to the recommendation to complement generally applicable metaheuristics with application-specific methods or heuristics, which fits well with the concept of MAs. == The development of MAs == === 1st generation === Pablo Moscato characterized an MA as follows: "Memetic algorithms are a marriage between a population-based global search and the heuristic local search made by each of the individuals. ... The mechanisms to do local search can be to reach a local optimum or to improve (regarding the objective cost function) up to a predetermined level." And he emphasizes "I am not constraining an MA to a genetic representation.". This original definition of MA although encompasses characteristics of cultural evolution (in the form of local refinement) in the search cycle, it may not qualify as a true evolving system according to universal Darwinism, since all the core principles of inheritance/memetic transmission, variation, and selection are missing. This suggests why the term MA stirred up criticisms and controversies among researchers when first introduced. The following pseudo code would correspond to this general definition of an MA: Pseudo code Procedure Memetic Algorithm Initialize: Generate an initial population, evaluate the individuals and assign a quality value to them; while Stopping conditions are not satisfied do Evolve a new population using stochastic search operators. Evaluate all individuals in the population and assign a quality value to them. Select the subset of individuals, Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} , that should undergo the individual improvement procedure. for each individual in Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} do Perform individual learning using meme(s) with frequency or probability of f i l {\displaystyle f_{il}} , with an intensity of t i l {\displaystyle t_{il}} . Proceed with Lamarckian or Baldwinian learning. end for end while Lamarckian learning in this context means to update the chromosome according to the improved solution found by the individual learning step, while Baldwinian learning leaves the chromosome unchanged and uses only the improved fitness. This pseudo code leaves open which steps are based on the fitness of the individuals and which are not. In question are the evolving of the new population and the selection of Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} . Since most MA implementations are based on EAs, the pseudo code of a corresponding representative of the first generation is also given here, following Krasnogor: Pseudo code Procedure Memetic Algorithm Based on an EA Initialization: t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} ; // Initialization of the generation counter Randomly generate an initial population P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} ; Compute the fitness f ( p ) ∀ p ∈ P ( t ) {\displaystyle f(p)\ \ \forall p\in P(t)} ; while Stopping conditions are not satisfied do Selection: Accordingly to f ( p ) {\displaystyle f(p)} choose a subset of P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} and store it in M ( t ) {\displaystyle M(t)} ; Offspring: Recombine and mutate individuals p ∈ M ( t ) {\displaystyle p\in M(t)} and store them in M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} ; Learning: Improve p ′ {\displaystyle p'} by local search or heuristic ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; Evaluation: Compute the fitness f ( p ′ ) ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle f(p')\ \ \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; if Lamarckian learning then Update chromosome of p ′ {\displaystyle p'} according to improvement ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; fi New generation: Generate P ( t + 1 ) {\displaystyle P(t+1)} by selecting some individuals from P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} and M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} ; t = t + 1 {\displaystyle t=t+1} ; // Increment the generation counter end while Return best individual p ∈ P ( t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p\in P(t-1)} as result; There are some alternatives for this MA scheme. For example: All or some of the initial individuals may be improved by the meme(s). The parents may be locally improved instead of the offspring. Instead of all offspring, only a randomly selected or fitness-dependent fraction may undergo local improvement. The latter requires the evaluation of the offspring in M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} prior to the Learning step. === 2nd generation === Multi-meme, hyper-heuristic and meta-Lamarckian MA are referred to as second generation MA exhibiting the principles of me
Gold (linker)
In software engineering, gold is a linker for ELF files. It became an official GNU package and was added to binutils in March 2008 and first released in binutils version 2.19. gold was developed by Ian Lance Taylor and a small team at Google. The motivation for writing gold was to make a linker that is faster than the GNU linker, especially for large applications coded in C++. Unlike the GNU linker, gold does not use the BFD library to process object files. While this limits the object file formats it can process to ELF only, it is also claimed to result in a cleaner and faster implementation without an additional abstraction layer. The author cited complete removal of BFD as a reason to create a new linker from scratch rather than incrementally improve the GNU linker. This rewrite also fixes some bugs in old ld that break ELF files in various minor ways. To specify gold in a makefile, one sets the LD or LD environment variable to ld.gold. To specify gold through a compiler option, one can use the gcc option -fuse-ld=gold. Fedora has moved gold from binutils into its own package due to concerns it is suffering from bitrot after Google's interest has moved to LLVM. In particular, gold does not read LDFLAGS variable, so cannot see libraries in folders like /usr/local/lib. On 2025-02-02 the 2.44 version of GNU Binutils removed gold from the default source distribution and into a separate package, stating that "the gold linker is now deprecated and will eventually be removed unless volunteers step forward and offer to continue development and maintenance".
Persian Speech Corpus
The Persian Speech Corpus is a Modern Persian speech corpus for speech synthesis. The corpus contains phonetic and orthographic transcriptions of about 2.5 hours of Persian speech aligned with recorded speech on the phoneme level, including annotations of word boundaries. Previous spoken corpora of Persian include FARSDAT, which consists of read aloud speech from newspaper texts from 100 Persian speakers and the Telephone FARsi Spoken language DATabase (TFARSDAT) which comprises seven hours of read and spontaneous speech produced by 60 native speakers of Persian from ten regions of Iran. The Persian Speech Corpus was built using the same methodologies laid out in the doctoral project on Modern Standard Arabic of Nawar Halabi at the University of Southampton. The work was funded by MicroLinkPC, who own an exclusive license to commercialise the corpus, though the corpus is available for non-commercial use through the corpus' website. It is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The corpus was built for speech synthesis purposes, but has been used for building HMM based voices in Persian. It can also be used to automatically align other speech corpora with their phonetic transcript and could be used as part of a larger corpus for training speech recognition systems. == Contents == The corpus is downloadable from its website, and contains the following: 396 .wav files containing spoken utterances 396 .lab files containing text utterances 396 .TextGrid files containing the phoneme labels with time stamps of the boundaries where these occur in the .wav files. phonetic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Phoneme Sequence]" in every line orthographic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Orthographic Transcript]" in every line
Dominance-based rough set approach
The dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) is an extension of rough set theory for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), introduced by Greco, Matarazzo and Słowiński. The main change compared to the classical rough sets is the substitution for the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits one to deal with inconsistencies typical to consideration of criteria and preference-ordered decision classes. == Multicriteria classification (sorting) == Multicriteria classification (sorting) is one of the problems considered within MCDA and can be stated as follows: given a set of objects evaluated by a set of criteria (attributes with preference-order domains), assign these objects to some pre-defined and preference-ordered decision classes, such that each object is assigned to exactly one class. Due to the preference ordering, improvement of evaluations of an object on the criteria should not worsen its class assignment. The sorting problem is very similar to the problem of classification, however, in the latter, the objects are evaluated by regular attributes and the decision classes are not necessarily preference ordered. The problem of multicriteria classification is also referred to as ordinal classification problem with monotonicity constraints and often appears in real-life application when ordinal and monotone properties follow from the domain knowledge about the problem. As an illustrative example, consider the problem of evaluation in a high school. The director of the school wants to assign students (objects) to three classes: bad, medium and good (notice that class good is preferred to medium and medium is preferred to bad). Each student is described by three criteria: level in Physics, Mathematics and Literature, each taking one of three possible values bad, medium and good. Criteria are preference-ordered and improving the level from one of the subjects should not result in worse global evaluation (class). As a more serious example, consider classification of bank clients, from the viewpoint of bankruptcy risk, into classes safe and risky. This may involve such characteristics as "return on equity (ROE)", "return on investment (ROI)" and "return on sales (ROS)". The domains of these attributes are not simply ordered but involve a preference order since, from the viewpoint of bank managers, greater values of ROE, ROI or ROS are better for clients being analysed for bankruptcy risk . Thus, these attributes are criteria. Neglecting this information in knowledge discovery may lead to wrong conclusions. == Data representation == === Decision table === In DRSA, data are often presented using a particular form of decision table. Formally, a DRSA decision table is a 4-tuple S = ⟨ U , Q , V , f ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle U,Q,V,f\rangle } , where U {\displaystyle U\,\!} is a finite set of objects, Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is a finite set of criteria, V = ⋃ q ∈ Q V q {\displaystyle V=\bigcup {}_{q\in Q}V_{q}} where V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} is the domain of the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} and f : U × Q → V {\displaystyle f\colon U\times Q\to V} is an information function such that f ( x , q ) ∈ V q {\displaystyle f(x,q)\in V_{q}} for every ( x , q ) ∈ U × Q {\displaystyle (x,q)\in U\times Q} . The set Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is divided into condition criteria (set C ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle C\neq \emptyset } ) and the decision criterion (class) d {\displaystyle d\,\!} . Notice, that f ( x , q ) {\displaystyle f(x,q)\,\!} is an evaluation of object x {\displaystyle x\,\!} on criterion q ∈ C {\displaystyle q\in C} , while f ( x , d ) {\displaystyle f(x,d)\,\!} is the class assignment (decision value) of the object. An example of decision table is shown in Table 1 below. === Outranking relation === It is assumed that the domain of a criterion q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is completely preordered by an outranking relation ⪰ q {\displaystyle \succeq _{q}} ; x ⪰ q y {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y} means that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is at least as good as (outranks) y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} . Without loss of generality, we assume that the domain of q {\displaystyle q\,\!} is a subset of reals, V q ⊆ R {\displaystyle V_{q}\subseteq \mathbb {R} } , and that the outranking relation is a simple order between real numbers ≥ {\displaystyle \geq \,\!} such that the following relation holds: x ⪰ q y ⟺ f ( x , q ) ≥ f ( y , q ) {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y\iff f(x,q)\geq f(y,q)} . This relation is straightforward for gain-type ("the more, the better") criterion, e.g. company profit. For cost-type ("the less, the better") criterion, e.g. product price, this relation can be satisfied by negating the values from V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} . === Decision classes and class unions === Let T = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle T=\{1,\ldots ,n\}\,\!} . The domain of decision criterion, V d {\displaystyle V_{d}\,\!} consist of n {\displaystyle n\,\!} elements (without loss of generality we assume V d = T {\displaystyle V_{d}=T\,\!} ) and induces a partition of U {\displaystyle U\,\!} into n {\displaystyle n\,\!} classes Cl = { C l t , t ∈ T } {\displaystyle {\textbf {Cl}}=\{Cl_{t},t\in T\}} , where C l t = { x ∈ U : f ( x , d ) = t } {\displaystyle Cl_{t}=\{x\in U\colon f(x,d)=t\}} . Each object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} is assigned to one and only one class C l t , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t},t\in T} . The classes are preference-ordered according to an increasing order of class indices, i.e. for all r , s ∈ T {\displaystyle r,s\in T} such that r ≥ s {\displaystyle r\geq s\,\!} , the objects from C l r {\displaystyle Cl_{r}\,\!} are strictly preferred to the objects from C l s {\displaystyle Cl_{s}\,\!} . For this reason, we can consider the upward and downward unions of classes, defined respectively, as: C l t ≥ = ⋃ s ≥ t C l s C l t ≤ = ⋃ s ≤ t C l s t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }=\bigcup _{s\geq t}Cl_{s}\qquad Cl_{t}^{\leq }=\bigcup _{s\leq t}Cl_{s}\qquad t\in T} == Main concepts == === Dominance === We say that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} dominates y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted by x D p y {\displaystyle xD_{p}y\,\!} , if x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is better than y {\displaystyle y\,\!} on every criterion from P {\displaystyle P\,\!} , x ⪰ q y , ∀ q ∈ P {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y,\,\forall q\in P} . For each P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , the dominance relation D P {\displaystyle D_{P}\,\!} is reflexive and transitive, i.e. it is a partial pre-order. Given P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} and x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , let D P + ( x ) = { y ∈ U : y D p x } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{+}(x)=\{y\in U\colon yD_{p}x\}} D P − ( x ) = { y ∈ U : x D p y } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{-}(x)=\{y\in U\colon xD_{p}y\}} represent P-dominating set and P-dominated set with respect to x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , respectively. === Rough approximations === The key idea of the rough set philosophy is approximation of one knowledge by another knowledge. In DRSA, the knowledge being approximated is a collection of upward and downward unions of decision classes and the "granules of knowledge" used for approximation are P-dominating and P-dominated sets. The P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≥ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≥ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\geq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ∩ C l t ≥ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\geq }\neq \emptyset \}} Analogously, the P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≤ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≤ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\leq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ∩ C l t ≤ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\leq }\neq \emptyset \}} Lower approximations group the objects which certainly belong to class union C l t ≥ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }} (respectively C l t ≤ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq }} ). This certainty comes from the fact, that object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} belongs to the lower approximation P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} (respectively P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underl
Sharpness aware minimization
Sharpness Aware Minimization (SAM) is an optimization algorithm used in machine learning that aims to improve model generalization. The method seeks to find model parameters that are located in regions of the loss landscape with uniformly low loss values, rather than parameters that only achieve a minimal loss value at a single point. This approach is described as finding "flat" minima instead of "sharp" ones. The rationale is that models trained this way are less sensitive to variations between training and test data, which can lead to better performance on unseen data. The algorithm was introduced in a 2020 paper by a team of researchers including Pierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, and Behnam Neyshabur. == Underlying Principle == SAM modifies the standard training objective by minimizing a "sharpness-aware" loss. This is formulated as a minimax problem where the inner objective seeks to find the highest loss value in the immediate neighborhood of the current model weights, and the outer objective minimizes this value: min w max ‖ ϵ ‖ p ≤ ρ L train ( w + ϵ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{w}\max _{\|\epsilon \|_{p}\leq \rho }L_{\text{train}}(w+\epsilon )+\lambda \|w\|_{2}^{2}} In this formulation: w {\displaystyle w} represents the model's parameters (weights). L train {\displaystyle L_{\text{train}}} is the loss calculated on the training data. ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is a perturbation applied to the weights. ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is a hyperparameter that defines the radius of the neighborhood (an L p {\displaystyle L_{p}} ball) to search for the highest loss. An optional L2 regularization term, scaled by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , can be included. A direct solution to the inner maximization problem is computationally expensive. SAM approximates it by taking a single gradient ascent step to find the perturbation ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This is calculated as: ϵ ( w ) = ρ ∇ L train ( w ) ‖ ∇ L train ( w ) ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon (w)=\rho {\frac {\nabla L_{\text{train}}(w)}{\|\nabla L_{\text{train}}(w)\|_{2}}}} The optimization process for each training step involves two stages. First, an "ascent step" computes a perturbed set of weights, w adv = w + ϵ ( w ) {\displaystyle w_{\text{adv}}=w+\epsilon (w)} , by moving towards the direction of the highest local loss. Second, a "descent step" updates the original weights w {\displaystyle w} using the gradient calculated at these perturbed weights, ∇ L train ( w adv ) {\displaystyle \nabla L_{\text{train}}(w_{\text{adv}})} . This update is typically performed using a standard optimizer like SGD or Adam. == Application and Performance == SAM has been applied in various machine learning contexts, primarily in computer vision. Research has shown it can improve generalization performance in models such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs) on image datasets including ImageNet, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100. The algorithm has also been found to be effective in training models with noisy labels, where it performs comparably to methods designed specifically for this problem. Some studies indicate that SAM and its variants can improve out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, which is a model's ability to perform well on data from distributions not seen during training. Other areas where it has been applied include gradual domain adaptation and mitigating overfitting in scenarios with repeated exposure to training examples. == Limitations == A primary limitation of SAM is its computational cost. By requiring two gradient computations (one for the ascent and one for the descent) per optimization step, it approximately doubles the training time compared to standard optimizers. The theoretical convergence properties of SAM are still under investigation. Some research suggests that with a constant step size, SAM may not converge to a stationary point. The accuracy of the single gradient step approximation for finding the worst-case perturbation may also decrease during the training process. The effectiveness of SAM can also be domain-dependent. While it has shown benefits for computer vision tasks, its impact on other areas, such as GPT-style language models where each training example is seen only once, has been reported as limited in some studies. Furthermore, while SAM seeks flat minima, some research suggests that not all flat minima necessarily lead to good generalization. The algorithm also introduces the neighborhood size ρ {\displaystyle \rho } as a new hyperparameter, which requires tuning. == Research, Variants, and Enhancements == Active research on SAM focuses on reducing its computational overhead and improving its performance. Several variants have been proposed to make the algorithm more efficient. These include methods that attempt to parallelize the two gradient computations, apply the perturbation to only a subset of parameters, or reduce the number of computation steps required. Other approaches use historical gradient information or apply SAM steps intermittently to lower the computational burden. To improve performance and robustness, variants have been developed that adapt the neighborhood size based on model parameter scales (Adaptive SAM or ASAM) or incorporate information about the curvature of the loss landscape (Curvature Regularized SAM or CR-SAM). Other research explores refining the perturbation step by focusing on specific components of the gradient or combining SAM with techniques like random smoothing. Theoretical work continues to analyze the algorithm's behavior, including its implicit bias towards flatter minima and the development of broader frameworks for sharpness-aware optimization that use different measures of sharpness.
Inferential theory of learning
Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) is an area of machine learning which describes inferential processes performed by learning agents. ITL has been continuously developed by Ryszard S. Michalski, starting in the 1980s. The first known publication of ITL was in 1983. In the ITL learning process is viewed as a search (inference) through hypotheses space guided by a specific goal. The results of learning need to be stored. Stored information will later be used by the learner for future inferences. Inferences are split into multiple categories including conclusive, deduction, and induction. In order for an inference to be considered complete it was required that all categories must be taken into account. This is how the ITL varies from other machine learning theories like Computational Learning Theory and Statistical Learning Theory; which both use singular forms of inference. == Usage == The most relevant published usage of ITL was in scientific journal published in 2012 and used ITL as a way to describe how agent-based learning works. According to the journal "The Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) provides an elegant way of describing learning processes by agents".
CN2 algorithm
The CN2 induction algorithm is a learning algorithm for rule induction. It is designed to work even when the training data is imperfect. It is based on ideas from the AQ algorithm and the ID3 algorithm. As a consequence it creates a rule set like that created by AQ but is able to handle noisy data like ID3. == Description of algorithm == The algorithm must be given a set of examples, TrainingSet, which have already been classified in order to generate a list of classification rules. A set of conditions, SimpleConditionSet, which can be applied, alone or in combination, to any set of examples is predefined to be used for the classification. routine CN2(TrainingSet) let the ClassificationRuleList be empty repeat let the BestConditionExpression be Find_BestConditionExpression(TrainingSet) if the BestConditionExpression is not nil then let the TrainingSubset be the examples covered by the BestConditionExpression remove from the TrainingSet the examples in the TrainingSubset let the MostCommonClass be the most common class of examples in the TrainingSubset append to the ClassificationRuleList the rule 'if ' the BestConditionExpression ' then the class is ' the MostCommonClass until the TrainingSet is empty or the BestConditionExpression is nil return the ClassificationRuleList routine Find_BestConditionExpression(TrainingSet) let the ConditionalExpressionSet be empty let the BestConditionExpression be nil repeat let the TrialConditionalExpressionSet be the set of conditional expressions, {x and y where x belongs to the ConditionalExpressionSet and y belongs to the SimpleConditionSet}. remove all formulae in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet that are either in the ConditionalExpressionSet (i.e., the unspecialized ones) or null (e.g., big = y and big = n) for every expression, F, in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet if F is statistically significant and F is better than the BestConditionExpression by user-defined criteria when tested on the TrainingSet then replace the current value of the BestConditionExpression by F while the number of expressions in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet > user-defined maximum remove the worst expression from the TrialConditionalExpressionSet let the ConditionalExpressionSet be the TrialConditionalExpressionSet until the ConditionalExpressionSet is empty return the BestConditionExpression