Vivification is an operation on a description logic knowledge base to improve performance of a semantic reasoner. Vivification replaces a disjunction of concepts C 1 ⊔ C 2 … ⊔ C n {\displaystyle C_{1}\sqcup C_{2}\ldots \sqcup C_{n}} by the least common subsumer of the concepts C 1 , C 2 , … C n {\displaystyle C_{1},C_{2},\ldots C_{n}} . The goal of this operation is to improve the performance of the reasoner by replacing a complex set of concepts with a single concept which subsumes the original concepts. For example, consider the example given in (Cohen 92): Suppose we have the concept PIANIST(Jill) ∨ ORGANIST(Jill) {\displaystyle {\textrm {PIANIST(Jill)}}\vee {\textrm {ORGANIST(Jill)}}} . This concept can be vivified into a simpler concept KEYBOARD-PLAYER(Jill) {\displaystyle {\textrm {KEYBOARD-PLAYER(Jill)}}} . This summarization leads to an approximation that may not be exactly equivalent to the original. == An approximation == Knowledge base vivification is not necessarily exact. If the reasoner is operating under the open world assumption we may get surprising results. In the previous example, if we replace the disjunction with the vivified concept, we will arrive at a surprising results. First, we find that the reasoner will no longer classify Jill as either a pianist or an organist. Even though ORGANIST {\displaystyle {\textrm {ORGANIST}}} and PIANIST {\displaystyle {\textrm {PIANIST}}} are the only two sub-classes, under the OWA we can no longer classify Jill as playing one or the other. The reason is that there may be another keyboard instrument (e.g. a harpsichord) that Jill plays but which does not have a specific subclass.
H2O (software)
H2O is an open-source, in-memory, distributed machine learning and predictive analytics platform developed by the company H2O.ai (previously 0xdata). The software uses a distributed architecture for parallel processing on standard hardware. It supports algorithms for large-scale data analysis and model deployment. H2O is primarily used by data scientists and developers for statistical modeling and data-driven decision-making. The platform is designed to handle in-memory computations across a distributed computing environment. It offers implementations for numerous statistical and machine learning algorithms, which are accessible through various programming interfaces. The software is released under the Apache License 2.0. == Functionality and features == H2O provides a suite of supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms. Its core functions include: Supervised learning: algorithms in the field of statistics, data mining and machine learning such as generalized linear models, random forests, gradient boosting and deep learning are implemented for classification and regression tasks. Unsupervised learning: including K-Means clustering and principal component analysis. Automated machine learning: a features designed to automate the processes of model selection, tuning, and ensemble creation. The software can ingest data from various sources, including the Hadoop Distributed File System, Amazon S3, SQL databases, as well as local file systems. It operates natively on Apache Spark clusters through Sparkling Water. Proponents claim that improved performance is achieved compared to other analysis tools. The software is distributed free of charge, under a business model based on the development of individual applications and support. == Architecture == H2O is primarily written in Java. It uses a distributed architecture that allows the platform to cluster nodes for parallel processing and in-memory storage of data and models. Users interact with the H2O platform through several primary interfaces: Programming language interfaces: APIs are provided for the R and Python programming languages, and various Apache offerings (Apache Hadoop and Spark, as well as Maven). H2O Flow: a graphical web-based interactive computational environment that functions as a notebook interface for data exploration, model building, and scripting. REST-API: allows for integration with other applications and frameworks such as Microsoft Excel or RStudio. With the H2O Machine Learning Integration Nodes, KNIME offers algorithmic workflows. While the algorithm executes, approximate results are displayed, so that users can track the progress and intervene if needed. == History, influences, and extensions == The software project was initiated by the company 0xdata, which later changed its name to H2O.ai. The three Stanford professors Stephen P. Boyd, Robert Tibshirani and Trevor Hastie form a panel that advises H2O on scientific issues. Since its inception, H2O provides open-source machine learning libraries for enterprise use. The core H2O platform is often complemented by offerings from H2O.ai, such as H2O Driverless AI. == Reception == H2O is referenced in peer-reviewed literature regarding automated machine learning (AutoML). The platform has been categorized as a "Leader" and a "Strong Performer" in industry reports by Forrester Research. H2O (the open-source platform) and the associated commercial platform Driverless AI have been recurring winners of InfoWorld's most prestigious awards, including both the Best of Open Source Software ("Bossies") and the Technology of the Year awards.
Representer theorem
For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr
Mutation (evolutionary algorithm)
Mutation is a genetic operator used to maintain genetic diversity of the chromosomes of a population of an evolutionary algorithm (EA), including genetic algorithms in particular. It is analogous to biological mutation. The classic example of a mutation operator of a binary coded genetic algorithm (GA) involves a probability that an arbitrary bit in a genetic sequence will be flipped from its original state. A common method of implementing the mutation operator involves generating a random variable for each bit in a sequence. This random variable tells whether or not a particular bit will be flipped. This mutation procedure, based on the biological point mutation, is called single point mutation. Other types of mutation operators are commonly used for representations other than binary, such as floating-point encodings or representations for combinatorial problems. The purpose of mutation in EAs is to introduce diversity into the sampled population. Mutation operators are used in an attempt to avoid local minima by preventing the population of chromosomes from becoming too similar to each other, thus slowing or even stopping convergence to the global optimum. This reasoning also leads most EAs to avoid only taking the fittest of the population in generating the next generation, but rather selecting a random (or semi-random) set with a weighting toward those that are fitter. The following requirements apply to all mutation operators used in an EA: every point in the search space must be reachable by one or more mutations. there must be no preference for parts or directions in the search space (no drift). small mutations should be more probable than large ones. For different genome types, different mutation types are suitable. Some mutations are Gaussian, Uniform, Zigzag, Scramble, Insertion, Inversion, Swap, and so on. An overview and more operators than those presented below can be found in the introductory book by Eiben and Smith or in. == Bit string mutation == The mutation of bit strings ensue through bit flips at random positions. Example: The probability of a mutation of a bit is 1 l {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{l}}} , where l {\displaystyle l} is the length of the binary vector. Thus, a mutation rate of 1 {\displaystyle 1} per mutation and individual selected for mutation is reached. == Mutation of real numbers == Many EAs, such as the evolution strategy or the real-coded genetic algorithms, work with real numbers instead of bit strings. This is due to the good experiences that have been made with this type of coding. The value of a real-valued gene can either be changed or redetermined. A mutation that implements the latter should only ever be used in conjunction with the value-changing mutations and then only with comparatively low probability, as it can lead to large changes. In practical applications, the respective value range of the decision variables to be changed of the optimisation problem to be solved is usually limited. Accordingly, the values of the associated genes are each restricted to an interval [ x min , x max ] {\displaystyle [x_{\min },x_{\max }]} . Mutations may or may not take these restrictions into account. In the latter case, suitable post-treatment is then required as described below. === Mutation without consideration of restrictions === A real number x {\displaystyle x} can be mutated using normal distribution N ( 0 , σ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(0,\sigma )} by adding the generated random value to the old value of the gene, resulting in the mutated value x ′ {\displaystyle x'} : x ′ = x + N ( 0 , σ ) {\displaystyle x'=x+{\mathcal {N}}(0,\sigma )} In the case of genes with a restricted range of values, it is a good idea to choose the step size of the mutation σ {\displaystyle \sigma } so that it reasonably fits the range [ x min , x max ] {\displaystyle [x_{\min },x_{\max }]} of the gene to be changed, e.g.: σ = x max − x min 6 {\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {x_{\text{max}}-x_{\text{min}}}{6}}} The step size can also be adjusted to the smaller permissible change range depending on the current value. In any case, however, it is likely that the new value x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the gene will be outside the permissible range of values. Such a case must be considered a lethal mutation, since the obvious repair by using the respective violated limit as the new value of the gene would lead to a drift. This is because the limit value would then be selected with the entire probability of the values beyond the limit of the value range. The evolution strategy works with real numbers and mutation based on normal distribution. The step sizes are part of the chromosome and are subject to evolution together with the actual decision variables. === Mutation with consideration of restrictions === One possible form of changing the value of a gene while taking its value range [ x min , x max ] {\displaystyle [x_{\min },x_{\max }]} into account is the mutation relative parameter change of the evolutionary algorithm GLEAM (General Learning Evolutionary Algorithm and Method), in which, as with the mutation presented earlier, small changes are more likely than large ones. First, an equally distributed decision is made as to whether the current value x {\displaystyle x} should be increased or decreased and then the corresponding total change interval is determined. Without loss of generality, an increase is assumed for the explanation and the total change interval is then [ x , x max ] {\displaystyle [x,x_{\max }]} . It is divided into k {\displaystyle k} sub-areas of equal size with the width δ {\displaystyle \delta } , from which k {\displaystyle k} sub-change intervals of different size are formed: i {\displaystyle i} -th sub-change interval: [ x , x + δ ⋅ i ] {\displaystyle [x,x+\delta \cdot i]} with δ = ( x max − x ) k {\displaystyle \delta ={\frac {(x_{\text{max}}-x)}{k}}} and i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} Subsequently, one of the k {\displaystyle k} sub-change intervals is selected in equal distribution and a random number, also equally distributed, is drawn from it as the new value x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the gene. The resulting summed probabilities of the sub-change intervals result in the probability distribution of the k {\displaystyle k} sub-areas shown in the adjacent figure for the exemplary case of k = 10 {\displaystyle k=10} . This is not a normal distribution as before, but this distribution also clearly favours small changes over larger ones. This mutation for larger values of k {\displaystyle k} , such as 10, is less well suited for tasks where the optimum lies on one of the value range boundaries. This can be remedied by significantly reducing k {\displaystyle k} when a gene value approaches its limits very closely. === Common properties === For both mutation operators for real-valued numbers, the probability of an increase and decrease is independent of the current value and is 50% in each case. In addition, small changes are considerably more likely than large ones. For mixed-integer optimization problems, rounding is usually used. == Mutation of permutations == Mutations of permutations are specially designed for genomes that are themselves permutations of a set. These are often used to solve combinatorial tasks. In the two mutations presented, parts of the genome are rotated or inverted. === Rotation to the right === The presentation of the procedure is illustrated by an example on the right: === Inversion === The presentation of the procedure is illustrated by an example on the right: === Variants with preference for smaller changes === The requirement raised at the beginning for mutations, according to which small changes should be more probable than large ones, is only inadequately fulfilled by the two permutation mutations presented, since the lengths of the partial lists and the number of shift positions are determined in an equally distributed manner. However, the longer the partial list and the shift, the greater the change in gene order. This can be remedied by the following modifications. The end index j {\displaystyle j} of the partial lists is determined as the distance d {\displaystyle d} to the start index i {\displaystyle i} : j = ( i + d ) mod | P 0 | {\displaystyle j=(i+d){\bmod {\left|P_{0}\right|}}} where d {\displaystyle d} is determined randomly according to one of the two procedures for the mutation of real numbers from the interval [ 0 , | P 0 | − 1 ] {\displaystyle \left[0,\left|P_{0}\right|-1\right]} and rounded. For the rotation, k {\displaystyle k} is determined similarly to the distance d {\displaystyle d} , but the value 0 {\displaystyle 0} is forbidden. For the inversion, note that i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} must hold, so for d {\displaystyle d} the value 0 {\displaystyle 0} must be excluded.
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
Automatic acquisition of lexicon
Automatic acquisition of lexicon is a computerized process used for the development of a complex morphological lexicon of a language. The lexicon is essential for the NLP (Natural language processing), as well as a prerequisite to any wide-coverage parser. The two main requirements represent raw corpus and the morphological description of the language. The aim is to provide lemmas that will serve to the explanation of all the words that occur within the corpus. For the achievement of a quality lexicon it is necessary to manually validate the generated lemmas and iterate the whole process several times. The process is focused on the open word classes (e.g. nouns, adjectives, verbs). Closed classes (e.g. prepositions, pronouns, numerals) are excluded. This method is applicable to the languages with a rich morphology, such as Slovak, Russian or Croatian. Applied to Slovak, being an inflectional language, the automatic acquisition focuses on the inflectional morphology as well as on the derivational morphology. This fact enables the users to find out the information about derivational relations (e.g. adjectivizations, prefixes) in the lexicon. For example, Slovak word korpusový is an adjectivization of korpus (eng. corpus). == Three-step loop == Conformably to Benoît Sagot, there are three stages involved in the acquisition of lemmas: Generation and inflection Ranking Manual validation The more iteration will be performed, the more accurate lexicon will be obtained. For each iteration are essential the information given by a manual validator. === Generation and inflection === Firstly, all words which represent the closed word classes (pronouns, prepositions, numerals) are manually excluded from the given corpus. Number of their occurrences in the corpus is provided. Then the automatic generation comes, when the hypothetical lemmas according to the morphological description of a language are created. Generated lemmas are consequently being inflected, so that all of their inflected forms are built. Obtained forms are associated with the corresponding lemma and a morphological tag. === Ranking === There was created a probabilistic model, represented by a fix-point algorithm, to rank the hypothetical lemmas generated in the first step. Best ranked lemmas are expected to be ideally all correct, whereas the least ranked tend to be incorrect. === Manual validation === Correctness of the best- ranked lemmas created in the previous step are checked by the manual validator, who should be a native speaker. Lemmas are at this stage divided into three categories: valid lemmas, appended to lexicon erroneous lemmas generated by valid forms (later associated to another lemmas) erroneous lemmas generated by invalid forms (these need to be excluded) == Future development == Automatic acquisition, in comparison to a purely manual development of the lexicons, seems to be promising, considering the future development, because of the short validation time needed and the relatively small amount of human labor involved.
Multi-surface method
The multi-surface method (MSM) is a form of decision making using the concept of piecewise-linear separability of datasets to categorize data. == Introduction == Two datasets are linearly separable if their convex hulls do not intersect. The method may be formulated as a feedforward neural network with weights that are trained via linear programming. Comparisons between neural networks trained with the MSM versus backpropagation show MSM is better able to classify data. The decision problem associated linear program for the MSM is NP-complete. == Mathematical formulation == Given two finite disjoint point sets A , B ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A,B}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , find a discriminant, f : R n → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } such that f ( A ) > 0 , f ( B ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle f({\mathcal {A}})>0,f({\mathcal {B}})\leq 0} . If the intersection of convex hulls of the two sets is the empty set, then it is possible to use a single linear program to obtain a linear discriminant of the form, f ( x ) = c x + γ {\displaystyle f(x)=cx+\gamma } . Usually, in real applications, the sets' convex hulls do intersect, and a (often non-convex) piecewise-linear discriminant can be used, through the use of several linear programs.