We Appreciate Power

"We Appreciate Power" is a song by Canadian musician Grimes, featuring American musician Hana. It was released on November 29, 2018, billed as the lead single from her fifth studio album Miss Anthropocene, however it is only available on the Japanese and deluxe releases. The song was written and produced by Grimes, Poppy (originally), Hana and Chris Greatti. == Background and release == The song was supposed to be one of two collaborations between Grimes and American singer Poppy, for the latter's second studio album Am I a Girl?. In an interview, Poppy mentioned that she wrote two songs with Grimes; one about "destroying things" and another about "power". The other song, "Play Destroy", was featured on the album. Grimes shared a lyric of the song with a photo of her with Poppy on Twitter in May 2018. Following feuds between the two singers, the song was released by Grimes featuring singer Hana instead. On November 26, Grimes announced she would be releasing new music on November 29. Two days later, she revealed that the single is titled "We Appreciate Power" and features Hana, and shared the artwork. The release of the song was accompanied by a lyric video directed by Grimes and her brother Mac Boucher. == Music and lyrics == "We Appreciate Power" is an industrial rock, nu metal, and techno-industrial song. The track is regarded as a further step into Grimes's experimentation with guitars that started on 2015's Art Angels. The track was compared to the works of Nine Inch Nails; Jillian Mapes of Pitchfork described the song as "an immediate onslaught of mutilated noise—distorted metal guitar chug, bloody screams, a guitar loop that conjures fear and demands worship. Flashes of Nine Inch Nails' Pretty Hate Machine reverberate through the drum programming and synths." Brendan Klinkenberg of Rolling Stone placed the song "somewhere between power pop and straightforward industrial (with an extended bridge reminiscent of the most sweeping moments in a Final Fantasy score)" and "a distinctly 2018 take on Nine Inch Nails-esque hard-edged rock." A press release stated that the song was inspired by the North Korean band Moranbong and was written "from the perspective of a Pro-A.I. Girl Group Propaganda machine who use song, dance, sex and fashion to spread goodwill towards Artificial Intelligence." In addition Grimes stated that by simply listening to the song you will be reducing your risk of ending up on any future AI overlord's hit list when it reigns supreme, mirroring the Roko's basilisk theory. Lyrically, the song touches on transhumanist ideas such as the betterment and future of the human race, the possibilities of merging consciousness with machines to extend life indefinitely through mind uploading, and the idea that reality may be simulated. The song's chorus generated a spike in interest in the word "capitulate". == Critical reception == Pitchfork critic Jillian Mapes wrote: "If "Freak on a Leash" isn't a dealbreaker, then the supervillain allure of "We Appreciate Power" might pull you in (it legitimately slaps), but it just as well may leave you weighed down by Grimes' commitment to the absolute darkest timeline." Billboard's Gil Kaufman described the song as "a dystopian, aggressive dive into a more rock-leaning sound." Similarly, Brendan Klinkenberg of Rolling Stone called it "the most aggressive single Grimes has released to date" Noisey called the song "an absolute motherfucker of a single" and opined it sounds "like a K-pop band covering nu-metal". Justin Kamp of Paste described the track as a "glitchy empowerment anthem that chugs along on screeching synths and Grimes' repeated exultations of power." == Personnel == Credits adapted from Tidal. Grimes – vocals, guitar, production, engineering Hana – vocals, guitar, additional production Chris Greatti – guitar, keyboards, production, engineering Zakk Cervini – mixing == Track listing == == Charts ==

Hi uTandem

Hi uTandem, also known as uTandem, is a free language exchange mobile app. It helps people to connect with other language learners in order to carry out face-to-face language exchange sessions and also offers learners lists of businesses in the field of language learning or language exchange. == Use == Hi uTandem is built around the concept of language exchange, which is a method of language learning based on mutual oral linguistic exchange between partners. Ideally, each partner is a native speaker of the language they are helping their counterpart to learn. The app designed for users to chat with other users and translate messages, find suitable language partners and to locate language schools, bars, cafés and language exchange groups around them. == Team and development == Hi uTandem was released in January, 2016. The initial idea was conceived by Alberto Rodríguez as part of a team of eight Spanish youngsters. Hi uTandem belongs to the company Velvor Tech S.L., founded by the same members and registered in Ronda (Spain). == Reception == Hi uTandem was listed on the Top 4 Apps to Learn Languages list by ElPlural.com and since its launch it has been featured in numerous online and physical sources, including 20 minutos, Europapress, ABC Andalucía and Telefónica's Think Big Blog.

Sigmoid function

A sigmoid function is any mathematical function whose graph has a characteristic S-shaped or sigmoid curve. A common example of a sigmoid function is the logistic function. Other sigmoid functions are given in the Examples section. In some fields, most notably in the context of artificial neural networks, the term "sigmoid function" is used as a synonym for "logistic function". Special cases of sigmoid functions include the Gompertz curve (used in modeling systems that saturate at large values of x) and the ogee curve (used in the spillway of some dams). Sigmoid functions have domain of all real numbers, with return (response) value commonly monotonically increasing but could be decreasing. Sigmoid functions most often show a return value (y axis) in the range 0 to 1. Another commonly used range is from −1 to 1. There is also the Heaviside step function, which instantaneously transitions between 0 and 1. A wide variety of sigmoid functions including the logistic and hyperbolic tangent functions have been used as the activation function of artificial neurons. Sigmoid curves are also common in statistics as cumulative distribution functions (which go from 0 to 1), such as the integrals of the logistic density, the normal density, and Student's t probability density functions. The logistic sigmoid function is invertible, and its inverse is the logit function. == Theory == In mathematics, a unitary sigmoid function is a bounded sigmoid-type function normalized to the unit range, typically with lower and upper asymptotes at 0 and 1. The theory proposed by Grebenc distinguishes three kinds of unitary sigmoid functions according to their asymptotic behavior and the presence or absence of oscillation near the asymptotes. A general form of a unitary sigmoid function is y = A S ( f ( x ) ) + B , {\displaystyle y=A\,S(f(x))+B,} where S {\displaystyle S} is an increasing sigmoid function, f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} is a transformation of the independent variable, and A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} are constants controlling scaling and translation. === Classification === ==== 1st kind ==== A unitary sigmoid function of the first kind is a bounded increasing function that approaches its lower and upper asymptotes monotonically, without oscillation. This class includes many of the standard sigmoid functions used in statistics, biomathematics, and engineering, such as the logistic function and related generalizations. ==== 2nd kind ==== A unitary sigmoid function of the second kind is a bounded increasing function that oscillates near the upper asymptote while preserving an overall sigmoid transition. ==== 3rd kind ==== A unitary sigmoid function of the third kind is a bounded increasing function that oscillates near both the lower and upper asymptotes. These functions retain the global shape of a sigmoid curve but exhibit oscillatory behavior in the vicinity of both limiting states. === Taxonomy === The tables below show the taxonomy of unitary sigmoid functions of all three kinds. Table 1. Taxonomy matrix with examples of sigmoid functions of the 1st kind Table 2. Taxonomy matrix with examples of sigmoid functions of the 2nd kind on the unbounded interval Table 3. Taxonomy matrix with examples of sigmoid functions of the 3rd kind === Construction methods === The same theory presents a list of 30 methods for constructing sigmoid functions.. These include algebraic transformations, integration and convolution methods, constructions from bell-shaped functions, solutions of ordinary and partial differential equations, recursive schemes, stochastic differential equations, feedback systems, and chaotic systems. M0: Construction method for sigmoid functions not evident or intuitive M1: Inverse of singularity functions M2: Sigmoid functions of embedded positive functions M3: Rising a sigmoid function to the power M4: Exponentiating a sigmoid function M5: Symmetric sigmoid functions derived from asymmetric ones M6: Sigmoid functions of the reciprocal independent variable M7: Embedding a sigmoid function into other function M8: Sum of sigmoid functions M9: Multiplication of sigmoid functions M10: Integral of the product of an increasing and a decreasing function M11: Derivation from lambda (bell-shaped) functions M12: Integration of lambda (bell-shaped) function M13: Integration of the sum of lambda (bell-shaped) functions M14: Integration of the product of two lambda (bell-shaped) functions M15: Integration of the difference of two shifted sigmoid functions M16: Integration of the product of two shifted sigmoid functions M17: Convolution of sigmoid functions M18: Integration of the product of lambda and sigmoid function M19: Solutions of ordinary differential equations M20: Solutions of partial differential equation (PDE) M21: Solutions of functional differential equation (FDE) M22: Sum of a sigmoid function and some derivatives M23: Combination of sigmoid functions, its derivative and integral M24: Filtering sigmoid functions M25: Special cases of Gauss hypergeometric functions M26: Feedback closed-loop systems M27: Recursive functions M28: Recursive time-delayed feed-forward loops M29: Solutions of stochastic differential equation M30: Chaotic sigmoid functions Consult reference for more details. == Definition == A sigmoid function is a bounded, differentiable, real function that is defined for all real input values and has a positive derivative at each point. == Properties == In general, a sigmoid function is monotonic, and has a first derivative which is bell shaped. Conversely, the integral of any continuous, non-negative, bell-shaped function (with one local maximum and no local minimum, unless degenerate) will be sigmoidal. Thus the cumulative distribution functions for many common probability distributions are sigmoidal. One such example is the error function, which is related to the cumulative distribution function of a normal distribution; another is the arctan function, which is related to the cumulative distribution function of a Cauchy distribution. A sigmoid function is constrained by a pair of horizontal asymptotes as x → ± ∞ {\displaystyle x\rightarrow \pm \infty } . A sigmoid function is convex for values less than a particular point, and it is concave for values greater than that point: in many of the examples here, that point is 0. == Examples == Logistic function f ( x ) = 1 1 + e − x {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{1+e^{-x}}}} Hyperbolic tangent (shifted and scaled version of the logistic function, above) f ( x ) = tanh ⁡ x = e x − e − x e x + e − x {\displaystyle f(x)=\tanh x={\frac {e^{x}-e^{-x}}{e^{x}+e^{-x}}}} Arctangent function f ( x ) = arctan ⁡ x {\displaystyle f(x)=\arctan x} Gudermannian function f ( x ) = gd ⁡ ( x ) = ∫ 0 x d t cosh ⁡ t = 2 arctan ⁡ ( tanh ⁡ ( x 2 ) ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\operatorname {gd} (x)=\int _{0}^{x}{\frac {dt}{\cosh t}}=2\arctan \left(\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)\right)} Error function f ( x ) = erf ⁡ ( x ) = 2 π ∫ 0 x e − t 2 d t {\displaystyle f(x)=\operatorname {erf} (x)={\frac {2}{\sqrt {\pi }}}\int _{0}^{x}e^{-t^{2}}\,dt} Generalised logistic function f ( x ) = ( 1 + e − x ) − α , α > 0 {\displaystyle f(x)=\left(1+e^{-x}\right)^{-\alpha },\quad \alpha >0} Smoothstep function f ( x ) = { ( ∫ 0 1 ( 1 − u 2 ) N d u ) − 1 ∫ 0 x ( 1 − u 2 ) N d u , | x | ≤ 1 sgn ⁡ ( x ) | x | ≥ 1 N ∈ Z ≥ 1 {\displaystyle f(x)={\begin{cases}{\displaystyle \left(\int _{0}^{1}\left(1-u^{2}\right)^{N}du\right)^{-1}\int _{0}^{x}\left(1-u^{2}\right)^{N}\ du},&|x|\leq 1\\\\\operatorname {sgn}(x)&|x|\geq 1\\\end{cases}}\quad N\in \mathbb {Z} \geq 1} Some algebraic functions, for example f ( x ) = x 1 + x 2 {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {x}{\sqrt {1+x^{2}}}}} and in a more general form f ( x ) = x ( 1 + | x | k ) 1 / k {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {x}{\left(1+|x|^{k}\right)^{1/k}}}} Up to shifts and scaling, many sigmoids are special cases of f ( x ) = φ ( φ ( x , β ) , α ) , {\displaystyle f(x)=\varphi (\varphi (x,\beta ),\alpha ),} where φ ( x , λ ) = { ( 1 − λ x ) 1 / λ λ ≠ 0 e − x λ = 0 {\displaystyle \varphi (x,\lambda )={\begin{cases}(1-\lambda x)^{1/\lambda }&\lambda \neq 0\\e^{-x}&\lambda =0\\\end{cases}}} is the inverse of the negative Box–Cox transformation, and α < 1 {\displaystyle \alpha <1} and β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} are shape parameters. Smooth transition function normalized to (−1,1): f ( x ) = { 2 1 + e − 2 m x 1 − x 2 − 1 , | x | < 1 sgn ⁡ ( x ) | x | ≥ 1 = { tanh ⁡ ( m x 1 − x 2 ) , | x | < 1 sgn ⁡ ( x ) | x | ≥ 1 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f(x)&={\begin{cases}{\displaystyle {\frac {2}{1+e^{-2m{\frac {x}{1-x^{2}}}}}}-1},&|x|<1\\\\\operatorname {sgn}(x)&|x|\geq 1\\\end{cases}}\\&={\begin{cases}{\displaystyle \tanh \left(m{\frac {x}{1-x^{2}}}\right)},&|x|<1\\\\\operatorname {sgn}(x)&|x|\geq 1\\\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} using the hyperbolic tangent mentioned above. Here, m {\displaystyle m} is a free parameter encoding the slope at x = 0 {\displaystyle x=0} , which must be great

Sample exclusion dimension

In computational learning theory, sample exclusion dimensions arise in the study of exact concept learning with queries. In algorithmic learning theory, a concept over a domain X is a Boolean function over X. Here we only consider finite domains. A partial approximation S of a concept c is a Boolean function over Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} such that c is an extension to S. Let C be a class of concepts and c be a concept (not necessarily in C). Then a specifying set for c w.r.t. C, denoted by S is a partial approximation S of c such that C contains at most one extension to S. If we have observed a specifying set for some concept w.r.t. C, then we have enough information to verify a concept in C with at most one more mind change. The exclusion dimension, denoted by XD(C), of a concept class is the maximum of the size of the minimum specifying set of c' with respect to C, where c' is a concept not in C.

Random forest

Random forests or random decision forests is an ensemble learning method for classification, regression and other tasks that works by creating a multitude of decision trees during training. For classification tasks, the output of the random forest is the class selected by most trees. For regression tasks, the output is the average of the predictions of the trees. Random forests correct for decision trees' habit of overfitting to their training set. The first algorithm for random decision forests was created in 1995 by Tin Kam Ho using the random subspace method, which, in Ho's formulation, is a way to implement the "stochastic discrimination" approach to classification proposed by Eugene Kleinberg. An extension of the algorithm was developed by Leo Breiman and Adele Cutler, who registered "Random Forests" as a trademark in 2006 (as of 2019, owned by Minitab, Inc.). The extension combines Breiman's "bagging" idea and random selection of features, introduced first by Ho and later independently by Amit and Geman in order to construct a collection of decision trees with controlled variance. == History == The general method of random decision forests was first proposed by Salzberg and Heath in 1993, with a method that used a randomized decision tree algorithm to create multiple trees and then combine them using majority voting. This idea was developed further by Ho in 1995. Ho established that forests of trees splitting with oblique hyperplanes can gain accuracy as they grow without suffering from overtraining, as long as the forests are randomly restricted to be sensitive to only selected feature dimensions. A subsequent work along the same lines concluded that other splitting methods behave similarly, as long as they are randomly forced to be insensitive to some feature dimensions. This observation that a more complex classifier (a larger forest) gets more accurate nearly monotonically is in sharp contrast to the common belief that the complexity of a classifier can only grow to a certain level of accuracy before being hurt by overfitting. The explanation of the forest method's resistance to overtraining can be found in Kleinberg's theory of stochastic discrimination. The early development of Breiman's notion of random forests was influenced by the work of Amit and Geman who introduced the idea of searching over a random subset of the available decisions when splitting a node, in the context of growing a single tree. The idea of random subspace selection from Ho was also influential in the design of random forests. This method grows a forest of trees, and introduces variation among the trees by projecting the training data into a randomly chosen subspace before fitting each tree or each node. Finally, the idea of randomized node optimization, where the decision at each node is selected by a randomized procedure, rather than a deterministic optimization was first introduced by Thomas G. Dietterich. The proper introduction of random forests was made in a paper by Leo Breiman, that has become one of the world's most cited papers. This paper describes a method of building a forest of uncorrelated trees using a CART like procedure, combined with randomized node optimization and bagging. In addition, this paper combines several ingredients, some previously known and some novel, which form the basis of the modern practice of random forests, in particular: Using out-of-bag error as an estimate of the generalization error. Measuring variable importance through permutation. The report also offers the first theoretical result for random forests in the form of a bound on the generalization error which depends on the strength of the trees in the forest and their correlation. == Algorithm == === Preliminaries: decision tree learning === Decision trees are a popular method for various machine learning tasks. Tree learning is almost "an off-the-shelf procedure for data mining", say Hastie et al., "because it is invariant under scaling and various other transformations of feature values, is robust to inclusion of irrelevant features, and produces inspectable models. However, they are seldom accurate". In particular, trees that are grown very deep tend to learn highly irregular patterns: they overfit their training sets, i.e. have low bias, but very high variance. Random forests are a way of averaging multiple deep decision trees, trained on different parts of the same training set, with the goal of reducing the variance. This comes at the expense of a small increase in the bias and some loss of interpretability, but generally greatly boosts the performance in the final model. === Bagging === The training algorithm for random forests applies the general technique of bootstrap aggregating, or bagging, to tree learners. Given a training set X = x1, ..., xn with responses Y = y1, ..., yn, bagging repeatedly (B times) selects a random sample with replacement of the training set and fits trees to these samples: After training, predictions for unseen samples x' can be made by averaging the predictions from all the individual regression trees on x': f ^ = 1 B ∑ b = 1 B f b ( x ′ ) {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}={\frac {1}{B}}\sum _{b=1}^{B}f_{b}(x')} or by taking the plurality vote in the case of classification trees. This bootstrapping procedure leads to better model performance because it decreases the variance of the model, without increasing the bias. This means that while the predictions of a single tree are highly sensitive to noise in its training set, the average of many trees is not, as long as the trees are not correlated. Simply training many trees on a single training set would give strongly correlated trees (or even the same tree many times, if the training algorithm is deterministic); bootstrap sampling is a way of de-correlating the trees by showing them different training sets. Additionally, an estimate of the uncertainty of the prediction can be made as the standard deviation of the predictions from all the individual regression trees on x′: σ = ∑ b = 1 B ( f b ( x ′ ) − f ^ ) 2 B − 1 . {\displaystyle \sigma ={\sqrt {\frac {\sum _{b=1}^{B}(f_{b}(x')-{\hat {f}})^{2}}{B-1}}}.} The number B of samples (equivalently, of trees) is a free parameter. Typically, a few hundred to several thousand trees are used, depending on the size and nature of the training set. B can be optimized using cross-validation, or by observing the out-of-bag error: the mean prediction error on each training sample xi, using only the trees that did not have xi in their bootstrap sample. The training and test error tend to level off after some number of trees have been fit. === From bagging to random forests === The above procedure describes the original bagging algorithm for trees. Random forests also include another type of bagging scheme: they use a modified tree learning algorithm that selects, at each candidate split in the learning process, a random subset of the features. This process is sometimes called "feature bagging". The reason for doing this is the correlation of the trees in an ordinary bootstrap sample: if one or a few features are very strong predictors for the response variable (target output), these features will be selected in many of the B trees, causing them to become correlated. An analysis of how bagging and random subspace projection contribute to accuracy gains under different conditions is given by Ho. Typically, for a classification problem with p {\displaystyle p} features, p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {p}}} (rounded down) features are used in each split. For regression problems the inventors recommend p / 3 {\displaystyle p/3} (rounded down) with a minimum node size of 5 as the default. In practice, the best values for these parameters should be tuned on a case-to-case basis for every problem. === ExtraTrees === Adding one further step of randomization yields extremely randomized trees, or ExtraTrees. As with ordinary random forests, they are an ensemble of individual trees, but there are two main differences: (1) each tree is trained using the whole learning sample (rather than a bootstrap sample), and (2) the top-down splitting is randomized: for each feature under consideration, a number of random cut-points are selected, instead of computing the locally optimal cut-point (based on, e.g., information gain or the Gini impurity). The values are chosen from a uniform distribution within the feature's empirical range (in the tree's training set). Then, of all the randomly chosen splits, the split that yields the highest score is chosen to split the node. Similar to ordinary random forests, the number of randomly selected features to be considered at each node can be specified. Default values for this parameter are p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {p}}} for classification and p {\displaystyle p} for regression, where p {\displaystyle p} is the number of features in the model. === Random forests for high-dimensional data === The basic random forest procedure may

EXAPT

EXAPT (a portmanteau of "Extended Subset of APT") is a production-oriented programming language that allows users to generate NC programs with control information for machining tools and facilitates decision-making for production-related issues that may arise during various machining processes. EXAPT was first developed to address industrial requirements. Through the years, the company created additional software for the manufacturing industry. Today, EXAPT offers a suite of SAAS products and services for the manufacturing industry. The trade name, EXAPT, is most commonly associated with the CAD/CAM-System, production data, and tool management software of the German company EXAPT Systemtechnik GmbH based in Aachen, DE. == General == EXAPT is a modularly built programming system for all NC machining operations as Drilling Turning Milling Turn-Milling Nibbling Flame-, laser-, plasma- and water jet cutting Wire eroding Operations with industrial robots Due to the modular structure, the main product groups, EXAPTcam and EXAPTpdo, are gradually expandable and permit individual software for the manufacturing industry used individually and also in a compound with an existing IT environment. == Functionality == EXAPTcam meets the requirements for NC planning, especially for the cutting operations such as turning, drilling, and milling up to 5-axis simultaneous machining. Thereby new process technologies, tool, and machine concepts are constantly involved. In the NC programming data from different sources such as 3D CAD models, drawings or tables can flow in. The possibilities of NC programming reaches from language-oriented to feature-oriented NC programming. The integrated EXAPT knowledge database and intelligent and scalable automatisms support the user. The EXAPT NC planning also covers the generation of production information as clamping and tool plans, presetting data or time calculations. The realistic simulation possibilities of NC planning and NC control data provide with production reliability. EXAPTpdo (EXAPT ProductionsDataOrganization) provides a neutrally applicable technology platform for the information compound of the NC planning - to the shop floor. This applies to all NC production data that are necessary for the set-up of NC machines, for the provision, presetting, and stocking of manufacturing resources and provided by EXAPTpdo in a central database. Besides classical functions of the tool management system (TMS) as the management of cutting tools, measuring, testing and clamping devices the technology data management and tool lifecycle management (TLM) is also included. System-supported "where-used lists" helps to handle the manufacturing resource cycle by secured requirement determination and requirement fulfillment. Unnecessary transports and unplanned dispositive adjustments are dropped, stocks are reduced, set-up times reduced and the throughput is increased. EXAPTpdo synchronizes involved systems within the value chain. Stock systems, MES systems or ERP systems (e.g. from the purchasing or production areas) do not work in isolation from each other but they interact with each other. EXAPTpdo provides the base to Smart Factory, for more flexibility in production and faster communication. == History == With the foundation of the EXAPT-Verein in 1967 as spin-off of the universities Aachen, Berlin and Stuttgart the further development "EXAPT (EXtended Subset of APT)" of the programming language "APT (Automatically Programmed Tool)" was focused and so the first milestone for the EXAPT history was set. In the same year the system EXAPT 1 for drilling and simple milling tasks became available. 1969 The industrial application of EXAPT 2 for the programming of NC machines with 2-axis linear and path control begins. In the following year, the development of the EXAPT modular system starts. 1972 BASIC-EXAPT is provided for the universal, homogeneous programming of all NC tasks. The support is made by the EXAPT applications consultancy. 1973 EXAPT 1.1 is provided for the programming of straight-cut and continuous-path controlled drilling and milling machines and machining centers. At the Hanover Fair (IHA 73) the interactive access to a mainframe via a time-sharing terminal for the part program entry and correction is presented and starts the replacement of the punch card. 1974 The possibilities for the use of process computers for the NC data transfer are leveled out. EXAPT offers the possibility of the result simulation when using plotters with display of tool paths and tools in assignment to the workpiece. In April 1975, the EXAPT NC Systemtechnik GmbH was founded with the aim, of enabling entry into the NC technique for small and medium-sized companies by a complete product and service program. In the following year, the system portfolio is extended with further system modules and service programs and the provision of postprocessors. 1978 The development activities on the EXAPT module system started in 1970 are completed. Using modern software techniques, the different system parts BASIC-EXAPT, EXAPT 1, EXAPT 1.1, and EXAPT 2 are composed of a total system. System support and applications consultancy become a new working focus. From the beginning to the middle of the 1980s Beside new portable software modules for CAD/CAM applications (e. g. CAPEX, NESTEX, CADEX, CADCPL), the first version of the EXAPT DNC system and extensions of the EXAPT NC programming system for the machining of sculptured surfaces are presented. 1988 EXAPT expands the software product range by systems for tool data management (BMO) and production data management (FDO). EXAPT trains more than 1,300 course participants including company-specific courses. 1992 The first version of the completely new product generation EXAPTplus is presented and the agency in Dresden is opened. 1993 The company name "EXAPT NC Systemtechnik GmbH" is changed to "EXAPT Systemtechnik GmbH." EXAPTplus is presented on PC under Windows NT at the EMO '93. The decentralization of the use of EXAPT systems expands the range of applications. In the following year, EXAPT-DNC is executable under Windows on a customary PC. Special hardware is not needed and so it can be used in compound with the database-supported EXAPT production data management system (FDO). 1995 EXAPTplus is also ready for complex application cases such as machining of tubes at extrusion tools. EXAPT-CADI provides the transfer of 2D CAD data to EXAPTplus. With the new office Gießen the marketing is strengthened. In the following year the EXAPT NC editor is developed for the direct processing of NC control data with tool path display and visualization of the tools. In the course of the market entry of more comfortable 3D CAD systems for the solid modelling of components a detailed evaluation of current systems is made in 1997. It is decided to use SolidWorks as a reference system for the solid-oriented NC planning with EXAPT. 1998 The first solution for the transfer of geometry data between SolidWorks and EXAPTplus is generated. The EXAPT organization systems are (beside SQL) also executable under Oracle now. The use of client server solutions supports the data flow in the production. 1999 AFR functions are provided in connection with EXAPTsolid to support a workpiece modelling for NC. The millennium capability is ensured for all EXAPT systems. AFR is a ground-breaking for the integration of third-party products. 2002 EXAPT-BMG is developed for the generation and visualization of tools with additional functions for the assembly from components. The acquisition of tools with their geometric and technological presentation offers extensive support of the NC planning with EXAPT systems. 2003 EXAPTpdo is available to optimize the process chains in production planning and production execution optimally regarding the increasing requirements of changing production conditions. 2004 Diverse system extensions are made in EXAPTplus, EXAPTsolid, EXAPT NC editor, EXAPTpdo for the complete machining on turning/milling centres with result reliability because of more extensive simulation based on realNC (Tecnomatix), for the use of new complex tool systems and the compound use between ERP systems as SAP and intelligent CNC systems. In the following year, EXAPTpdo is extended for the cross-order set-up optimization and provision of manufacturing re-sources especially for single and small series production with connection to purchase and physical portfolio management. 2006 The EXAPT systems are available for extended use as an information platform for production, the time management, and similar requirements. EXAPTsolid is extended for the feature-oriented milling operation and machine simulation. The NC programming of complex machine tools, e.g. three-turret-turning/milling centers is supported by EXAPT systems, as well as the use of multi-functional tools. 2007 A module for 3-5-axis simultaneous milling machining is presented.

Randomized weighted majority algorithm

The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an algorithm in machine learning theory for aggregating expert predictions to a series of decision problems. It is a simple and effective method based on weighted voting which improves on the mistake bound of the deterministic weighted majority algorithm. In fact, in the limit, its prediction rate can be arbitrarily close to that of the best-predicting expert. == Example == Imagine that every morning before the stock market opens, we get a prediction from each of our "experts" about whether the stock market will go up or down. Our goal is to somehow combine this set of predictions into a single prediction that we then use to make a buy or sell decision for the day. The principal challenge is that we do not know which experts will give better or worse predictions. The RWMA gives us a way to do this combination such that our prediction record will be nearly as good as that of the single expert which, in hindsight, gave the most accurate predictions. == Motivation == In machine learning, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a deterministic meta-learning algorithm for aggregating expert predictions. In pseudocode, the WMA is as follows: initialize all experts to weight 1 for each round: add each expert's weight to the option they predicted predict the option with the largest weighted sum multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} Suppose there are n {\displaystyle n} experts and the best expert makes m {\displaystyle m} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) makes at most 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ n + m ) {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}n+m)} mistakes. This bound is highly problematic in the case of highly error-prone experts. Suppose, for example, the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time; that is, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds using n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} mistakes. As this is a known limitation of the weighted majority algorithm, various strategies have been explored in order to improve the dependence on m {\displaystyle m} . In particular, we can do better by introducing randomization. Drawing inspiration from the Multiplicative Weights Update Method algorithm, we will probabilistically make predictions based on how the experts have performed in the past. Similarly to the WMA, every time an expert makes a wrong prediction, we will decrement their weight. Mirroring the MWUM, we will then use the weights to make a probability distribution over the actions and draw our action from this distribution (instead of deterministically picking the majority vote as the WMA does). == Randomized weighted majority algorithm (RWMA) == The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an attempt to improve the dependence of the mistake bound of the WMA on m {\displaystyle m} . Instead of predicting based on majority vote, the weights, are used as probabilities for choosing the experts in each round and are updated over time (hence the name randomized weighted majority). Precisely, if w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} is the weight of expert i {\displaystyle i} , let W = ∑ i w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i}w_{i}} . We will follow expert i {\displaystyle i} with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} . This results in the following algorithm: initialize all experts to weight 1. for each round: add all experts' weights together to obtain the total weight W {\displaystyle W} choose expert i {\displaystyle i} randomly with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} predict as the chosen expert predicts multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by β {\displaystyle \beta } The goal is to bound the worst-case expected number of mistakes, assuming that the adversary has to select one of the answers as correct before we make our coin toss. This is a reasonable assumption in, for instance, the stock market example provided above: the variance of a stock price should not depend on the opinions of experts that influence private buy or sell decisions, so we can treat the price change as if it was decided before the experts gave their recommendations for the day. The randomized algorithm is better in the worst case than the deterministic algorithm (weighted majority algorithm): in the latter, the worst case was when the weights were split 50/50. But in the randomized version, since the weights are used as probabilities, there would still be a 50/50 chance of getting it right. In addition, generalizing to multiplying the weights of the incorrect experts by β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} instead of strictly 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} allows us to trade off between dependence on m {\displaystyle m} and log 2 ⁡ n {\displaystyle \log _{2}n} . This trade-off will be quantified in the analysis section. == Analysis == Let W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} denote the total weight of all experts at round t {\displaystyle t} . Also let F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} denote the fraction of weight placed on experts which predict the wrong answer at round t {\displaystyle t} . Finally, let N {\displaystyle N} be the total number of rounds in the process. By definition, F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} is the probability that the algorithm makes a mistake on round t {\displaystyle t} . It follows from the linearity of expectation that if M {\displaystyle M} denotes the total number of mistakes made during the entire process, E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} . After round t {\displaystyle t} , the total weight is decreased by ( 1 − β ) F t W t {\displaystyle \ (1-\beta )F_{t}W_{t}} , since all weights corresponding to a wrong answer are multiplied by β < 1 {\displaystyle \ \beta <1} . It then follows that W t + 1 = W t ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) {\displaystyle W_{t+1}=W_{t}(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})} . By telescoping, since W 1 = n {\displaystyle W_{1}=n} , it follows that the total weight after the process concludes is On the other hand, suppose that m {\displaystyle \ m} is the number of mistakes made by the best-performing expert. At the end, this expert has weight β m {\displaystyle \ \beta ^{m}} . It follows, then, that the total weight is at least this much; in other words, W ≥ β m {\displaystyle \ W\geq \beta ^{m}} . This inequality and the above result imply Taking the natural logarithm of both sides yields Now, the Taylor series of the natural logarithm is In particular, it follows that ln ⁡ ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) < − ( 1 − β ) F t {\displaystyle \ \ln(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})<-(1-\beta )F_{t}} . Thus, Recalling that E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} and rearranging, it follows that Now, as β → 1 {\displaystyle \beta \to 1} from below, the first constant tends to 1 {\displaystyle 1} ; however, the second constant tends to + ∞ {\displaystyle +\infty } . To quantify this tradeoff, define ε = 1 − β {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1-\beta } to be the penalty associated with getting a prediction wrong. Then, again applying the Taylor series of the natural logarithm, It then follows that the mistake bound, for small ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } , can be written in the form ( 1 + ϵ 2 + O ( ε 2 ) ) m + ϵ − 1 ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ \left(1+{\frac {\epsilon }{2}}+O(\varepsilon ^{2})\right)m+\epsilon ^{-1}\ln(n)} . In English, the less that we penalize experts for their mistakes, the more that additional experts will lead to initial mistakes but the closer we get to capturing the predictive accuracy of the best expert as time goes on. In particular, given a sufficiently low value of ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and enough rounds, the randomized weighted majority algorithm can get arbitrarily close to the correct prediction rate of the best expert. In particular, as long as m {\displaystyle m} is sufficiently large compared to ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ln(n)} (so that their ratio is sufficiently small), we can assign we can obtain an upper bound on the number of mistakes equal to This implies that the "regret bound" on the algorithm (that is, how much worse it performs than the best expert) is sublinear, at O ( m ln ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O({\sqrt {m\ln(n)}})} . == Revisiting the motivation == Recall that the motivation for the randomized weighted majority algorithm was given by an example where the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time. Precisely, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds, with n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, where the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes, the deterministic weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} . By the analysis above, it follows that minimizing the number of worst-case expected mistakes is equivalent to minimizing the fun