Feature hashing

In machine learning, feature hashing, also known as the hashing trick (by analogy to the kernel trick), is a fast and space-efficient way of vectorizing features, i.e. turning arbitrary features into indices in a vector or matrix. It works by applying a hash function to the features and using their hash values as indices directly (after a modulo operation), rather than looking the indices up in an associative array. In addition to its use for encoding non-numeric values, feature hashing can also be used for dimensionality reduction. This trick is often attributed to Weinberger et al. (2009), but there exists a much earlier description of this method published by John Moody in 1989. == Motivation == === Motivating example === In a typical document classification task, the input to the machine learning algorithm (both during learning and classification) is free text. From this, a bag of words (BOW) representation is constructed: the individual tokens are extracted and counted, and each distinct token in the training set defines a feature (independent variable) of each of the documents in both the training and test sets. Machine learning algorithms, however, are typically defined in terms of numerical vectors. Therefore, the bags of words for a set of documents is regarded as a term-document matrix where each row is a single document, and each column is a single feature/word; the entry i, j in such a matrix captures the frequency (or weight) of the j'th term of the vocabulary in document i. (An alternative convention swaps the rows and columns of the matrix, but this difference is immaterial.) Typically, these vectors are extremely sparse—according to Zipf's law. The common approach is to construct, at learning time or prior to that, a dictionary representation of the vocabulary of the training set, and use that to map words to indices. Hash tables and tries are common candidates for dictionary implementation. E.g., the three documents John likes to watch movies. Mary likes movies too. John also likes football. can be converted, using the dictionary to the term-document matrix ( John likes to watch movies Mary too also football 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}{\textrm {John}}&{\textrm {likes}}&{\textrm {to}}&{\textrm {watch}}&{\textrm {movies}}&{\textrm {Mary}}&{\textrm {too}}&{\textrm {also}}&{\textrm {football}}\\1&1&1&1&1&0&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0&1&1&1&0&0\\1&1&0&0&0&0&0&1&1\end{pmatrix}}} (Punctuation was removed, as is usual in document classification and clustering.) The problem with this process is that such dictionaries take up a large amount of storage space and grow in size as the training set grows. On the contrary, if the vocabulary is kept fixed and not increased with a growing training set, an adversary may try to invent new words or misspellings that are not in the stored vocabulary so as to circumvent a machine learned filter. To address this challenge, Yahoo! Research attempted to use feature hashing for their spam filters. Note that the hashing trick isn't limited to text classification and similar tasks at the document level, but can be applied to any problem that involves large (perhaps unbounded) numbers of features. === Mathematical motivation === Mathematically, a token is an element t {\displaystyle t} in a finite (or countably infinite) set T {\displaystyle T} . Suppose we only need to process a finite corpus, then we can put all tokens appearing in the corpus into T {\displaystyle T} , meaning that T {\displaystyle T} is finite. However, suppose we want to process all possible words made of the English letters, then T {\displaystyle T} is countably infinite. Most neural networks can only operate on real vector inputs, so we must construct a "dictionary" function ϕ : T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . When T {\displaystyle T} is finite, of size | T | = m ≤ n {\displaystyle |T|=m\leq n} , then we can use one-hot encoding to map it into R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . First, arbitrarily enumerate T = { t 1 , t 2 , . . , t m } {\displaystyle T=\{t_{1},t_{2},..,t_{m}\}} , then define ϕ ( t i ) = e i {\displaystyle \phi (t_{i})=e_{i}} . In other words, we assign a unique index i {\displaystyle i} to each token, then map the token with index i {\displaystyle i} to the unit basis vector e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} . One-hot encoding is easy to interpret, but it requires one to maintain the arbitrary enumeration of T {\displaystyle T} . Given a token t ∈ T {\displaystyle t\in T} , to compute ϕ ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)} , we must find out the index i {\displaystyle i} of the token t {\displaystyle t} . Thus, to implement ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } efficiently, we need a fast-to-compute bijection h : T → { 1 , . . . , m } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,m\}} , then we have ϕ ( t ) = e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)=e_{h(t)}} . In fact, we can relax the requirement slightly: It suffices to have a fast-to-compute injection h : T → { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,n\}} , then use ϕ ( t ) = e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)=e_{h(t)}} . In practice, there is no simple way to construct an efficient injection h : T → { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,n\}} . However, we do not need a strict injection, but only an approximate injection. That is, when t ≠ t ′ {\displaystyle t\neq t'} , we should probably have h ( t ) ≠ h ( t ′ ) {\displaystyle h(t)\neq h(t')} , so that probably ϕ ( t ) ≠ ϕ ( t ′ ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)\neq \phi (t')} . At this point, we have just specified that h {\displaystyle h} should be a hashing function. Thus we reach the idea of feature hashing. == Algorithms == === Feature hashing (Weinberger et al. 2009) === The basic feature hashing algorithm presented in (Weinberger et al. 2009) is defined as follows. First, one specifies two hash functions: the kernel hash h : T → { 1 , 2 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,2,...,n\}} , and the sign hash ζ : T → { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle \zeta :T\to \{-1,+1\}} . Next, one defines the feature hashing function: ϕ : T → R n , ϕ ( t ) = ζ ( t ) e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n},\quad \phi (t)=\zeta (t)e_{h(t)}} Finally, extend this feature hashing function to strings of tokens by ϕ : T ∗ → R n , ϕ ( t 1 , . . . , t k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ϕ ( t j ) {\displaystyle \phi :T^{}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n},\quad \phi (t_{1},...,t_{k})=\sum _{j=1}^{k}\phi (t_{j})} where T ∗ {\displaystyle T^{}} is the set of all finite strings consisting of tokens in T {\displaystyle T} . Equivalently, ϕ ( t 1 , . . . , t k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ζ ( t j ) e h ( t j ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( ∑ j : h ( t j ) = i ζ ( t j ) ) e i {\displaystyle \phi (t_{1},...,t_{k})=\sum _{j=1}^{k}\zeta (t_{j})e_{h(t_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum _{j:h(t_{j})=i}\zeta (t_{j})\right)e_{i}} ==== Geometric properties ==== We want to say something about the geometric property of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , but T {\displaystyle T} , by itself, is just a set of tokens, we cannot impose a geometric structure on it except the discrete topology, which is generated by the discrete metric. To make it nicer, we lift it to T → R T {\displaystyle T\to \mathbb {R} ^{T}} , and lift ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } from ϕ : T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} to ϕ : R T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :\mathbb {R} ^{T}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} by linear extension: ϕ ( ( x t ) t ∈ T ) = ∑ t ∈ T x t ζ ( t ) e h ( t ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( ∑ t : h ( t ) = i x t ζ ( t ) ) e i {\displaystyle \phi ((x_{t})_{t\in T})=\sum _{t\in T}x_{t}\zeta (t)e_{h(t)}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum _{t:h(t)=i}x_{t}\zeta (t)\right)e_{i}} There is an infinite sum there, which must be handled at once. There are essentially only two ways to handle infinities. One may impose a metric, then take its completion, to allow well-behaved infinite sums, or one may demand that nothing is actually infinite, only potentially so. Here, we go for the potential-infinity way, by restricting R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} to contain only vectors with finite support: ∀ ( x t ) t ∈ T ∈ R T {\displaystyle \forall (x_{t})_{t\in T}\in \mathbb {R} ^{T}} , only finitely many entries of ( x t ) t ∈ T {\displaystyle (x_{t})_{t\in T}} are nonzero. Define an inner product on R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} in the obvious way: ⟨ e t , e t ′ ⟩ = { 1 , if t = t ′ , 0 , else. ⟨ x , x ′ ⟩ = ∑ t , t ′ ∈ T x t x t ′ ⟨ e t , e t ′ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle e_{t},e_{t'}\rangle ={\begin{cases}1,{\text{ if }}t=t',\\0,{\text{ else.}}\end{cases}}\quad \langle x,x'\rangle =\sum _{t,t'\in T}x_{t}x_{t'}\langle e_{t},e_{t'}\rangle } As a side note, if T {\displaystyle T} is infinite, then the inner product space R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} is not complete. Taking its completion would get us to a Hilbert space, which allows well-behaved infinite sums. Now we have an inner product space, with enough structure to describe the geometry of the feature hashing function ϕ : R T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :\ma

Wadhwani Institute for Artificial Intelligence

Wadhwani AI, based in Mumbai, Maharashtra, is an independent, non-profit institute. Founded in 2018, it is dedicated to developing Artificial intelligence solutions for social good. Their mission is to build AI-based innovations and solutions for underserved communities in developing countries, for a wide range of domains including agriculture, education, financial inclusion, healthcare, and infrastructure. == History and funding == The institute was founded with a $30 million philanthropic effort by the Wadhwani brothers, Romesh Wadhwani and Sunil Wadhwani. The institute was inaugurated and dedicated to the nation by Narendra Modi, the 14th Prime Minister of India. In 2019, the institute received a $2 million grant from Google.org to create technologies to help reduce crop losses in cotton farming, through integrated pest management. The United States Agency for International Development awarded $2 million to the institute in 2020 to develop tools, using mathematical modeling techniques and digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, to forecast COVID-19 disease patterns, estimate resources needed, and plan interventions. == Collaboration == With assistance from Google, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare and the Wadhwani AI developed Krishi 24/7, the first AI-powered automated agricultural news monitoring and analysis tool. Through better decision-making, Krishi 24/7 will support the identification of valuable news, provide timely notifications, and respond quickly to safeguard farmers' interests and advance sustainable agricultural growth. The application converts news articles into English after scanning them in several languages. It ensures that the ministry is informed in a timely manner about pertinent occurrences that are published online by extracting key information from news items, including the headline, crop name, event type, date, location, severity, summary, and source link. The National Center for Disease Control has effectively implemented a comparable automated surveillance and analysis tool for disease outbreaks.

Naive Bayes classifier

In statistics, naive (sometimes simple or idiot's) Bayes classifiers are a family of "probabilistic classifiers" which assume that the features are conditionally independent, given the target class. In other words, a naive Bayes model assumes the information about the class provided by each variable is unrelated to the information from the others, with no information shared between the predictors. The highly unrealistic nature of this assumption, called the naive independence assumption, is what gives the classifier its name. These classifiers are some of the simplest Bayesian network models. Naive Bayes classifiers generally perform worse than more advanced models like logistic regressions, especially at quantifying uncertainty (with naive Bayes models often producing wildly overconfident probabilities). However, they are highly scalable, requiring only one parameter for each feature or predictor in a learning problem. Maximum-likelihood training can be done by evaluating a closed-form expression (simply by counting observations in each group), rather than the expensive iterative approximation algorithms required by most other models. Despite the use of Bayes' theorem in the classifier's decision rule, naive Bayes is not (necessarily) a Bayesian method, and naive Bayes models can be fit to data using either Bayesian or frequentist methods. == Introduction == Naive Bayes is a simple technique for constructing classifiers: models that assign class labels to problem instances, represented as vectors of feature values, where the class labels are drawn from some finite set. There is not a single algorithm for training such classifiers, but a family of algorithms based on a common principle: all naive Bayes classifiers assume that the value of a particular feature is independent of the value of any other feature, given the class variable. For example, a fruit may be considered to be an apple if it is red, round, and about 10 cm in diameter. A naive Bayes classifier considers each of these features to contribute independently to the probability that this fruit is an apple, regardless of any possible correlations between the color, roundness, and diameter features. In many practical applications, parameter estimation for naive Bayes models uses the method of maximum likelihood; in other words, one can work with the naive Bayes model without accepting Bayesian probability or using any Bayesian methods. Despite their naive design and apparently oversimplified assumptions, naive Bayes classifiers have worked quite well in many complex real-world situations. In 2004, an analysis of the Bayesian classification problem showed that there are sound theoretical reasons for the apparently implausible efficacy of naive Bayes classifiers. Still, a comprehensive comparison with other classification algorithms in 2006 showed that Bayes classification is outperformed by other approaches, such as boosted trees or random forests. An advantage of naive Bayes is that it only requires a small amount of training data to estimate the parameters necessary for classification. == Probabilistic model == Abstractly, naive Bayes is a conditional probability model: it assigns probabilities p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} for each of the K possible outcomes or classes C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} given a problem instance to be classified, represented by a vector x = ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} encoding some n features (independent variables). The problem with the above formulation is that if the number of features n is large or if a feature can take on a large number of values, then basing such a model on probability tables is infeasible. The model must therefore be reformulated to make it more tractable. Using Bayes' theorem, the conditional probability can be decomposed as: p ( C k ∣ x ) = p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid \mathbf {x} )={\frac {p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})}{p(\mathbf {x} )}}\,} In plain English, using Bayesian probability terminology, the above equation can be written as posterior = prior × likelihood evidence {\displaystyle {\text{posterior}}={\frac {{\text{prior}}\times {\text{likelihood}}}{\text{evidence}}}\,} In practice, there is interest only in the numerator of that fraction, because the denominator does not depend on C {\displaystyle C} and the values of the features x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are given, so that the denominator is effectively constant. The numerator is equivalent to the joint probability model p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\,} which can be rewritten as follows, using the chain rule for repeated applications of the definition of conditional probability: p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( x 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 3 , … , x n , C k ) = ⋯ = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) ⋯ p ( x n − 1 ∣ x n , C k ) p ( x n ∣ C k ) p ( C k ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})&=p(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=\cdots \\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\cdots p(x_{n-1}\mid x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{n}\mid C_{k})\ p(C_{k})\\\end{aligned}}} Now the "naive" conditional independence assumptions come into play: assume that all features in x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } are mutually independent, conditional on the category C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} . Under this assumption, p ( x i ∣ x i + 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle p(x_{i}\mid x_{i+1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})=p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,.} Thus, the joint model can be expressed as p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) ∝ p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( C k ) p ( x 1 ∣ C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ C k ) p ( x 3 ∣ C k ) ⋯ = p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\varpropto \ &p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\\&=p(C_{k})\ p(x_{1}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{3}\mid C_{k})\ \cdots \\&=p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,,\end{aligned}}} where ∝ {\displaystyle \varpropto } denotes proportionality since the denominator p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} is omitted. This means that under the above independence assumptions, the conditional distribution over the class variable C {\displaystyle C} is: p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = 1 Z p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})={\frac {1}{Z}}\ p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})} where the evidence Z = p ( x ) = ∑ k p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle Z=p(\mathbf {x} )=\sum _{k}p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})} is a scaling factor dependent only on x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , that is, a constant if the values of the feature variables are known. Often, it is only necessary to discriminate between classes. In that case, the scaling factor is irrelevant, and it is sufficient to calculate the log-probability up to a factor: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) − ln ⁡ Z ⏟ irrelevant {\displaystyle \ln p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})=\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\underbrace {-\ln Z} _{\text{irrelevant}}} The scaling factor is irrelevant, since discrimination subtracts it away: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) p ( C l ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ( ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) ) − ( ln ⁡ p ( C l ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C l ) ) {\displaystyle \ln {\frac {p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}{p(C_{l}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}}=\left(\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\right)-\left(\ln p(C_{l})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{l})\right)} There are two benefits of using log-probability. One is that it allows an interpretation in information theory, where log-probabilities are units of information in nats. Another is that it avoids arithmetic underflow. === Constructing a classifier from the probability model === The discussion so far has derived the independent feature model, that is, the naive Bayes probability model. The naive Bayes classifier combines this model with a decision rule. One common rule is to pick the hypothesis that is most probable so as to minimize the probability of misclassification; this is known as the maximum a posteriori or MAP decision rule. The corresponding classifier, a Bayes classifier, is the function that assigns a class label y ^ = C k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=C_{k}} for some k as follows: y ^ = argmax k ∈ { 1 , … , K } p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\underset {k\in \{1,\ldots ,K\}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(C_{k})\displays

Apache Mahout

Apache Mahout is a project of the Apache Software Foundation to produce free implementations of distributed or otherwise scalable machine learning algorithms focused primarily on linear algebra. In the past, many of the implementations use the Apache Hadoop platform, however today it is primarily focused on Apache Spark. Mahout also provides Java/Scala libraries for common math operations (focused on linear algebra and statistics) and primitive Java collections. Mahout is a work in progress; a number of algorithms have been implemented. == Features == === Samsara === Apache Mahout-Samsara refers to a Scala domain-specific language (DSL) that allows users to use R-like syntax as opposed to traditional Scala-like syntax. This allows user to express algorithms concisely and clearly. === Backend agnostic === Apache Mahout's code abstracts the domain-specific language from the engine where the code is run. While active development is done with the Apache Spark engine, users are free to implement any engine they choose- H2O and Apache Flink have been implemented in the past and examples exist in the code base. === GPU/CPU accelerators === The JVM has notoriously slow computation. To improve speed, "native solvers" were added which move in-core, and by extension, distributed BLAS operations out of the JVM, offloading to off-heap or GPU memory for processing via multiple CPUs and/or CPU cores, or GPUs when built against the ViennaCL library. ViennaCL is a highly optimized C++ library with BLAS operations implemented in OpenMP, and OpenCL. As of release 14.1, the OpenMP build considered to be stable, leaving the OpenCL build is still in its experimental proof-of-concept phase. === Recommenders === Apache Mahout features implementations of Alternating Least Squares, Co-Occurrence, and Correlated Co-Occurrence, a unique-to-Mahout recommender algorithm that extends co-occurrence to be used on multiple dimensions of data. == History == === Transition from Map Reduce to Apache Spark === While Mahout's core algorithms for clustering, classification and batch based collaborative filtering were implemented on top of Apache Hadoop using the map/reduce paradigm, it did not restrict contributions to Hadoop-based implementations. Contributions that run on a single node or on a non-Hadoop cluster were also welcomed. For example, the 'Taste' collaborative-filtering recommender component of Mahout was originally a separate project and can run stand-alone without Hadoop. Starting with the release 0.10.0, the project shifted its focus to building a backend-independent programming environment, code named "Samsara". The environment consists of an algebraic backend-independent optimizer and an algebraic Scala DSL unifying in-memory and distributed algebraic operators. Supported algebraic platforms are Apache Spark, H2O, and Apache Flink. Support for MapReduce algorithms started being gradually phased out in 2014. === Release history === === Developers === Apache Mahout is developed by a community. The project is managed by a group called the "Project Management Committee" (PMC). The current PMC is Andrew Musselman, Andrew Palumbo, Drew Farris, Isabel Drost-Fromm, Jake Mannix, Pat Ferrel, Paritosh Ranjan, Trevor Grant, Robin Anil, Sebastian Schelter, Stevo Slavić.

Cross-entropy

In information theory, the cross-entropy between two probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} , over the same underlying set of events, measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set when the coding scheme used for the set is optimized for an estimated probability distribution q {\displaystyle q} , rather than the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} . == Definition == The cross-entropy of the distribution q {\displaystyle q} relative to a distribution p {\displaystyle p} over a given set is defined as follows: H ( p , q ) = − E p ⁡ [ log ⁡ q ] , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=-\operatorname {E} _{p}[\log q],} where E p ⁡ [ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{p}[\cdot ]} is the expected value operator with respect to the distribution p {\displaystyle p} . The definition may be formulated using the Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , divergence of p {\displaystyle p} from q {\displaystyle q} (also known as the relative entropy of p {\displaystyle p} with respect to q {\displaystyle q} ). H ( p , q ) = H ( p ) + D K L ( p ∥ q ) , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=H(p)+D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q),} where H ( p ) {\displaystyle H(p)} is the entropy of p {\displaystyle p} . For discrete probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with the same support X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , this means The situation for continuous distributions is analogous. We have to assume that p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are absolutely continuous with respect to some reference measure r {\displaystyle r} (usually r {\displaystyle r} is a Lebesgue measure on a Borel σ-algebra). Let P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} be probability density functions of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with respect to r {\displaystyle r} . Then − ∫ X P ( x ) log ⁡ Q ( x ) d x = E p ⁡ [ − log ⁡ Q ] , {\displaystyle -\int _{\mathcal {X}}P(x)\,\log Q(x)\,\mathrm {d} x=\operatorname {E} _{p}[-\log Q],} and therefore NB: The notation H ( p , q ) {\displaystyle H(p,q)} is also used for a different concept, the joint entropy of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} . == Motivation == In information theory, the Kraft–McMillan theorem establishes that any directly decodable coding scheme for coding a message to identify one value x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of a set of possibilities { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} can be seen as representing an implicit probability distribution q ( x i ) = ( 1 2 ) ℓ i {\displaystyle q(x_{i})=\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)^{\ell _{i}}} over { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} , where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is the length of the code for x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} in bits. Therefore, cross-entropy can be interpreted as the expected message-length per datum when a wrong distribution q {\displaystyle q} is assumed while the data actually follows a distribution p {\displaystyle p} . That is why the expectation is taken over the true probability distribution p {\displaystyle p} and not q . {\displaystyle q.} Indeed the expected message-length under the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} is E p ⁡ [ ℓ ] = − E p ⁡ [ ln ⁡ q ( x ) ln ⁡ ( 2 ) ] = − E p ⁡ [ log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) ] = − ∑ x i p ( x i ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) = − ∑ x p ( x ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) = H ( p , q ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {E} _{p}[\ell ]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[{\frac {\ln {q(x)}}{\ln(2)}}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[\log _{2}{q(x)}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x_{i}}p(x_{i})\,\log _{2}q(x_{i})\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x}p(x)\,\log _{2}q(x)=H(p,q).\end{aligned}}} == Estimation == There are many situations where cross-entropy needs to be measured but the distribution of p {\displaystyle p} is unknown. An example is language modeling, where a model is created based on a training set T {\displaystyle T} , and then its cross-entropy is measured on a test set to assess how accurate the model is in predicting the test data. In this example, p {\displaystyle p} is the true distribution of words in any corpus, and q {\displaystyle q} is the distribution of words as predicted by the model. Since the true distribution is unknown, cross-entropy cannot be directly calculated. In these cases, an estimate of cross-entropy is calculated using the following formula: H ( T , q ) = − ∑ i = 1 N 1 N log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) {\displaystyle H(T,q)=-\sum _{i=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}\log _{2}q(x_{i})} where N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the test set, and q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(x)} is the probability of event x {\displaystyle x} estimated from the training set. In other words, q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} is the probability estimate of the model that the i-th word of the text is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . The sum is averaged over the N {\displaystyle N} words of the test. This is a Monte Carlo estimate of the true cross-entropy, where the test set is treated as samples from p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} . == Relation to maximum likelihood == The cross entropy arises in classification problems when introducing a logarithm in the guise of the log-likelihood function. This section concerns the estimation of the probabilities of different discrete outcomes. To this end, denote a parametrized family of distributions by q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } subject to the optimization effort. Consider a given finite sequence of N {\displaystyle N} values x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from a training set, obtained from conditionally independent sampling. The likelihood assigned to any considered parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the model is then given by the product over all probabilities q θ ( X = x i ) {\displaystyle q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})} . Repeated occurrences are possible, leading to equal factors in the product. If the count of occurrences of the value equal to x {\displaystyle x} is denoted by # x {\displaystyle \#x} , then the frequency of that value equals # x / N {\displaystyle \#x/N} . If p ( X = x ) {\displaystyle p(X=x)} is the underlying probability distribution, for large N {\displaystyle N} we expect p ( X = x ) ≈ # x / N {\displaystyle p(X=x)\approx \#x/N} , by the law of large numbers. Writing our likelihood function as the product of observations from the distribution q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} : L ( θ ; x ) = ∏ i q θ ( X = x i ) = ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) # x ≈ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) = exp ⁡ log ⁡ [ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) ] = exp ⁡ ( ∑ x N ⋅ p ( X = x ) log ⁡ q θ ( X = x ) ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })&=\prod _{i}q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})=\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{\#x}\\&\approx \prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}=\exp \log \left[\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}\right]\\&=\exp \left(\sum _{x}N\cdot p(X=x)\log q_{\theta }(X=x)^{}\right),\end{aligned}}} where we have used the calculation rules for the logarithm in the final line. Notice how the exponent contains a − H ( p , q θ ) {\displaystyle -H(p,q_{\theta })} term. Taking the logarithm of both sides gives: log ⁡ L ( θ ; x ) = − N ⋅ H ( p , q θ ) . {\displaystyle \log {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })=-N\cdot H(p,q_{\theta }).} Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by this final step. Similarly, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by the factor of N {\displaystyle N} . So we observe that the likelihood maximization amounts to minimization of the cross-entropy. == Cross-entropy minimization == Cross-entropy minimization is frequently used in optimization and rare-event probability estimation. When comparing a distribution q {\displaystyle q} against a fixed reference distribution p {\displaystyle p} , cross-entropy and KL divergence are identical up to an additive constant (since p {\displaystyle p} is fixed): According to the Gibbs' inequality, both take on their minimal values when p = q {\displaystyle p=q} , which is 0 {\displaystyle 0} for KL divergence, and H ( p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (p)} for cross-entropy. In the engineering literature, the principle of minimizing KL divergence (Kullback's "Principle of Minimum Discrimination Information") is often called the Principle of Minimum Cross-Entropy (MCE), or Minxent. However, as discussed in the article Kullback–Leibler divergence, sometimes the distribution q {\displaystyle q} is the fixed prior reference distribution, and the distribution p {\displaystyle p} is optimized to be as close to q {\displaystyle q} as possible, subject to some constraint. In this case the two minimizations are not equivalent. This has led to some ambiguity in the literature, with some authors attempting to resolve the inconsistency by restating cross-entropy to be D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , rather than H (

BigDog

BigDog is a dynamically stable quadruped military robot platform that was created in 2005 by Boston Dynamics with the Harvard University Concord Field Station. It was funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), but the project was shelved after the BigDog's gas engine was deemed too loud for combat. == History == BigDog was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the hopes that it would be able to serve as a mechanic pack mule to accompany soldiers in terrain too rough for conventional vehicles. Instead of wheels or treads, BigDog uses four legs for movement, allowing it to move across surfaces that would be difficult for wheels. The legs contain a variety of sensors, including joint position and ground contact. BigDog also features a laser gyroscope and a stereo vision system. BigDog is 3 feet (0.91 m) long, stands 2.5 feet (0.76 m) tall, and weighs 240 pounds (110 kg), making it about the size of a small mule. It is capable of traversing difficult terrain, running at four miles per hour (6.4 km/h), carrying 340 pounds (150 kg), and climbing a 35 degree incline. Locomotion is controlled by an onboard computer that receives input from the robot's various sensors. Navigation and balance are also managed by the control system. BigDog's walking pattern is controlled through four legs, each equipped with four low-friction hydraulic cylinder actuators that power the joints. BigDog's locomotion behaviors can vary greatly. It can stand up, sit down, walk with a crawling gait that lifts one leg at a time, walk with a trotting gait lifting diagonal legs, or trot with a running gait. The travel speed of BigDog varies from a 0.62 mph (1 km/h) crawl to a 3.3 mph (5.3 km/h) trot. The BigDog project was headed by Dr. Martin Buehler, who received the Joseph Engelberger Award from the Robotics Industries Association in 2012 for the work. Dr. Buehler while previously a professor at McGill University, headed the robotics lab there, developing four-legged walking and running robots. Built onto the actuators are sensors for joint position and force, and movement is ultimately controlled through an onboard computer which manages the sensors. Approximately 50 sensors are located on BigDog. These measure the attitude and acceleration of the body, motion, and force of joint actuators as well as engine speed, temperature and hydraulic pressure inside the robot's internal engine. Low-level control, such as position and force of the joints, and high-level control such as velocity and altitude during locomotion, are both controlled through the onboard computer. BigDog was featured in episodes of Web Junk 20 and Hungry Beast, and in articles in New Scientist, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and The Wall Street Journal. In September 2011 Boston Dynamics released video footage of a new generation of BigDog known as AlphaDog. The footage shows AlphaDog's ability to walk on rough terrain and recover its balance when kicked from the side. The refined equivalent has been designed by Boston Dynamics to exceed the BigDog in terms of capabilities and use to dismounted soldiers. In February 2012, with further DARPA support, the militarized Legged Squad Support System (LS3) variant of BigDog demonstrated its capabilities during a hike over a rough terrain. Starting in the summer of 2012, DARPA planned to complete the overall development of the system and refine its key capabilities in 18 months, ensuring its worth to dismounted warfighters before it is rolled out to squads operating in-theatre. BigDog must be able to demonstrate its ability to complete a 20-mile (32 km) trail in 24 hours, without refuelling, while carrying a 325-pound (150 kg) load. A refinement of its vision sensors will also be conducted. At the end of February 2013, Boston Dynamics released video footage of a modified BigDog with an arm. The arm could pick up objects and throw them. The robot is relying on its legs and torso to help power the motions of the arm. It is believed that it can lift weights around 55 pounds (25 kg). This work was funded by the United States Army Research Laboratory and paved the way for integrating manipulators with quadrupeds as found on Spot, the spiritual successor of BigDog. === Discontinuation === At the end of December 2013, the BigDog project was discontinued. Despite hopes that it would one day work like a pack mule for US soldiers in the field, the gasoline-powered engine was deemed too noisy for use in combat, and it could be heard from hundreds of meters away. A similar project for an all-electric robot named Spot in 2016 was much quieter, but could only carry 45 pounds (20 kg). Both projects are no longer in progress, but the Spot was only released in 2020. == Hardware == BigDog is powered by a small two-stroke, one-cylinder, 15-brake-horsepower (11 kW) engine operating at 9,000 RPM. The engine drives a hydraulic pump, which in turn drives the hydraulic leg actuators. Each leg has four actuators (two for the hip joint, and two each for the knee and ankle joints), for a total of 16. Each actuator unit consists of a hydraulic cylinder, servo valve, position sensor, and force sensor. Onboard computing power is a ruggedized PC/104 board stack with two computers, one running a Pentium M processor running QNX (used for sensor data processing) and another running a Core Duo processor (used for visual data processing). == Gallery ==

Least-squares support vector machine

Least-squares support-vector machines (LS-SVM) for statistics and in statistical modeling, are least-squares versions of support-vector machines (SVM), which are a set of related supervised learning methods that analyze data and recognize patterns, and which are used for classification and regression analysis. In this version one finds the solution by solving a set of linear equations instead of a convex quadratic programming (QP) problem for classical SVMs. Least-squares SVM classifiers were proposed by Johan Suykens and Joos Vandewalle. LS-SVMs are a class of kernel-based learning methods. == From support-vector machine to least-squares support-vector machine == Given a training set { x i , y i } i = 1 N {\displaystyle \{x_{i},y_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N}} with input data x i ∈ R n {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and corresponding binary class labels y i ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,+1\}} , the SVM classifier, according to Vapnik's original formulation, satisfies the following conditions: { w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ≥ 1 , if y i = + 1 , w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ≤ − 1 , if y i = − 1 , {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\geq 1,&{\text{if }}\quad y_{i}=+1,\\w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\leq -1,&{\text{if }}\quad y_{i}=-1,\end{cases}}} which is equivalent to y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 , i = 1 , … , N , {\displaystyle y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1,\quad i=1,\ldots ,N,} where ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \phi (x)} is the nonlinear map from original space to the high- or infinite-dimensional space. === Inseparable data === In case such a separating hyperplane does not exist, we introduce so-called slack variables ξ i {\displaystyle \xi _{i}} such that { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 − ξ i , i = 1 , … , N , ξ i ≥ 0 , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1-\xi _{i},&i=1,\ldots ,N,\\\xi _{i}\geq 0,&i=1,\ldots ,N.\end{cases}}} According to the structural risk minimization principle, the risk bound is minimized by the following minimization problem: min J 1 ( w , ξ ) = 1 2 w T w + c ∑ i = 1 N ξ i , {\displaystyle \min J_{1}(w,\xi )={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+c\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\xi _{i},} Subject to { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 − ξ i , i = 1 , … , N , ξ i ≥ 0 , i = 1 , … , N , {\displaystyle {\text{Subject to }}{\begin{cases}y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1-\xi _{i},&i=1,\ldots ,N,\\\xi _{i}\geq 0,&i=1,\ldots ,N,\end{cases}}} To solve this problem, we could construct the Lagrangian function: L 1 ( w , b , ξ , α , β ) = 1 2 w T w + c ∑ i = 1 N ξ i − ∑ i = 1 N α i { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] − 1 + ξ i } − ∑ i = 1 N β i ξ i , {\displaystyle L_{1}(w,b,\xi ,\alpha ,\beta )={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+c\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}{\xi _{i}}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]-1+\xi _{i}\right\}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\beta _{i}\xi _{i},} where α i ≥ 0 , β i ≥ 0 ( i = 1 , … , N ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\geq 0,\ \beta _{i}\geq 0\ (i=1,\ldots ,N)} are the Lagrangian multipliers. The optimal point will be in the saddle point of the Lagrangian function, and then we obtain By substituting w {\displaystyle w} by its expression in the Lagrangian formed from the appropriate objective and constraints, we will get the following quadratic programming problem: max Q 1 ( α ) = − 1 2 ∑ i , j = 1 N α i α j y i y j K ( x i , x j ) + ∑ i = 1 N α i , {\displaystyle \max Q_{1}(\alpha )=-{\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i,j=1}^{N}{\alpha _{i}\alpha _{j}y_{i}y_{j}K(x_{i},x_{j})}+\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i},} where K ( x i , x j ) = ⟨ ϕ ( x i ) , ϕ ( x j ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})=\left\langle \phi (x_{i}),\phi (x_{j})\right\rangle } is called the kernel function. Solving this QP problem subject to constraints in (1), we will get the hyperplane in the high-dimensional space and hence the classifier in the original space. === Least-squares SVM formulation === The least-squares version of the SVM classifier is obtained by reformulating the minimization problem as min J 2 ( w , b , e ) = μ 2 w T w + ζ 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 , {\displaystyle \min J_{2}(w,b,e)={\frac {\mu }{2}}w^{T}w+{\frac {\zeta }{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2},} subject to the equality constraints y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] = 1 − e i , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]=1-e_{i},\quad i=1,\ldots ,N.} The least-squares SVM (LS-SVM) classifier formulation above implicitly corresponds to a regression interpretation with binary targets y i = ± 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}=\pm 1} . Using y i 2 = 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}^{2}=1} , we have ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = ∑ i = 1 N ( y i e i ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = ∑ i = 1 N ( y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) ) 2 , {\displaystyle \sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}(y_{i}e_{i})^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\left(y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b)\right)^{2},} with e i = y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) . {\displaystyle e_{i}=y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b).} Notice, that this error would also make sense for least-squares data fitting, so that the same end results holds for the regression case. Hence the LS-SVM classifier formulation is equivalent to J 2 ( w , b , e ) = μ E W + ζ E D {\displaystyle J_{2}(w,b,e)=\mu E_{W}+\zeta E_{D}} with E W = 1 2 w T w {\displaystyle E_{W}={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w} and E D = 1 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = 1 2 ∑ i = 1 N ( y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) ) 2 . {\displaystyle E_{D}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\left(y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b)\right)^{2}.} Both μ {\displaystyle \mu } and ζ {\displaystyle \zeta } should be considered as hyperparameters to tune the amount of regularization versus the sum squared error. The solution does only depend on the ratio γ = ζ / μ {\displaystyle \gamma =\zeta /\mu } , therefore the original formulation uses only γ {\displaystyle \gamma } as tuning parameter. We use both μ {\displaystyle \mu } and ζ {\displaystyle \zeta } as parameters in order to provide a Bayesian interpretation to LS-SVM. The solution of LS-SVM regressor will be obtained after we construct the Lagrangian function: { L 2 ( w , b , e , α ) = J 2 ( w , e ) − ∑ i = 1 N α i { [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] + e i − y i } , = 1 2 w T w + γ 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 − ∑ i = 1 N α i { [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] + e i − y i } , {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}L_{2}(w,b,e,\alpha )\;=J_{2}(w,e)-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{{\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]+e_{i}-y_{i}}\right\},\\\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \;={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+{\frac {\gamma }{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{\left[w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\right]+e_{i}-y_{i}\right\},\end{cases}}} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } are the Lagrange multipliers. The conditions for optimality are { ∂ L 2 ∂ w = 0 → w = ∑ i = 1 N α i ϕ ( x i ) , ∂ L 2 ∂ b = 0 → ∑ i = 1 N α i = 0 , ∂ L 2 ∂ e i = 0 → α i = γ e i , i = 1 , … , N , ∂ L 2 ∂ α i = 0 → y i = w T ϕ ( x i ) + b + e i , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial w}}=0\quad \to \quad w=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\phi (x_{i}),\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial b}}=0\quad \to \quad \sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}=0,\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial e_{i}}}=0\quad \to \quad \alpha _{i}=\gamma e_{i},\;i=1,\ldots ,N,\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial \alpha _{i}}}=0\quad \to \quad y_{i}=w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b+e_{i},\,i=1,\ldots ,N.\end{cases}}} Elimination of w {\displaystyle w} and e {\displaystyle e} will yield a linear system instead of a quadratic programming problem: [ 0 1 N T 1 N Ω + γ − 1 I N ] [ b α ] = [ 0 Y ] , {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{matrix}0&1_{N}^{T}\\1_{N}&\Omega +\gamma ^{-1}I_{N}\end{matrix}}\right]\left[{\begin{matrix}b\\\alpha \end{matrix}}\right]=\left[{\begin{matrix}0\\Y\end{matrix}}\right],} with Y = [ y 1 , … , y N ] T {\displaystyle Y=[y_{1},\ldots ,y_{N}]^{T}} , 1 N = [ 1 , … , 1 ] T {\displaystyle 1_{N}=[1,\ldots ,1]^{T}} and α = [ α 1 , … , α N ] T {\displaystyle \alpha =[\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N}]^{T}} . Here, I N {\displaystyle I_{N}} is an N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} identity matrix, and Ω ∈ R N × N {\displaystyle \Omega \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times N}} is the kernel matrix defined by Ω i j = ϕ ( x i ) T ϕ ( x j ) = K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle \Omega _{ij}=\phi (x_{i})^{T}\phi (x_{j})=K(x_{i},x_{j})} . === Kernel function K === For the kernel function K(•, •) one typically has the following choices: Linear kernel : K ( x , x i ) = x i T x , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=x_{i}^{T}x,} Polynomial kernel of degree d {\displaystyle d} : K ( x , x i ) = ( 1 + x i T x / c ) d , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\left({1+x_{i}^{T}x/c}\right)^{d},} Radial basis function RBF kernel : K ( x , x i ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x − x i ‖ 2 / σ 2 ) , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\exp \left({-\left\|{x-x_{i}}\right\|^{2}/\sigma ^{2}}\right),} MLP kernel : K ( x , x i ) = tanh ⁡ ( k x i T x + θ ) , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\tanh \left({k