Marq (formerly Lucidpress) is a cloud-based software platform for brand management and templated content creation. The platform integrates with digital asset management (DAM) systems—including Aprimo and Bynder and customer relationship management (CRM) tools such as Salesforce and HubSpot. Marq also includes AI-assisted features for brand compliance and content automation. Trade publications have described the product as a brand templating and creative automation platform. == History == In October 2013, Lucid Software, Inc. announced Lucidpress as a public beta version. Following its release, Lucidpress was featured in TechCrunch, VentureBeat and PC World, with TechCrunch noting: "I had a chance to test the app before its launch and it is indeed very easy to use. If you've ever used a desktop publishing app in the past, you'll feel right at home with Marq, as it features the same kind of standard top-bar menu and layout options as most other publishing apps. In terms of features, it can also hold its own against similar desktop-based apps." In May 2021, Lucidpress announced that it had been acquired by Charles Thayne Capital ("CTC"), a growth-oriented and technology-focused private investment firm. In May 2021, following its acquisition by Charles Thayne Capital, Lucidpress became fully independent. Owen Fuller, who had served as General Manager since 2017, was appointed Chief Executive Officer. In 2022, Lucidpress was rebranded as Marq to reflect the company’s shift toward brand templating and creative automation tools, while continuing to support its publishing features. == Features == Marq integrates with customer relationship management (CRM) platforms such as Salesforce and HubSpot, enabling the creation of personalized, on-brand sales and marketing materials. The platform also connects with multiple digital asset management (DAM) systems, including Bynder, Aprimo, MediaValet, PhotoShelter, Acquia, and Canto. == Investment == Lucid Software raised $1 million in Seed in 2011, led by Google Ventures. In May 2014, the company received a $5 million investment. The round was led by Salt Lake-based Kickstart Seed Fund. In September 2016, the company received a $36 million investment from Spectrum Equity.
Deep Instinct
Deep Instinct is a cybersecurity company that applies deep learning to cybersecurity. The company implements artificial intelligence to the task of preventing and detecting malware. The company was the recipient of the Technology Pioneer by The World Economic Forum in 2017. Lane Bess has been CEO of the company since 2022. == Overview == In 2015, Deep Instinct was founded by Guy Caspi, Dr. Eli David, and Nadav Maman. The headquarters of the company is located in New York City. In July 2017, NVIDIA became an investor. According to Tom's Hardware, NVIDIA’s investment enabled access to a GPU-based neural network and CUDA platform, which they were using to achieve maximum vulnerability detection rates. As of February 2020, the company had raised $43 million in Series C funding round. In April 2021, Deep Instinct raised $100 million in Series D funding to accelerate growth. == Partnerships == In April 2019, Deep Instinct partnered with Chinese artist, Guo O. Dong on an art project titled, The Persistence of Chaos, consisting of a laptop infected with 6 pieces of malware that represented $95 billion in damages. The art was auctioned with a final bid of $1,345,000. In the same year, Globes reported that, HP Inc partnered with Deep Instinct to launch their security solution HP SureSense, which has been applied to the EliteBook and Zbook devices.
Targeted maximum likelihood estimation
Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) (also more accurately referred to as Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation) is a general statistical estimation framework for causal inference and semiparametric models. TMLE combines ideas from maximum likelihood estimation, semiparametric efficiency theory, and machine learning. It was introduced by Mark J. van der Laan and colleagues in the mid-2000s as a method that yields asymptotically efficient plug-in estimators while allowing the use of flexible, data-adaptive algorithms such as ensemble machine learning for nuisance parameter estimation. TMLE is used in epidemiology, biostatistics, and the social sciences to estimate causal effects in observational and experimental studies. Applications of TMLE include Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE) for time-varying treatments and confounders. Variations in how the targeting step in TMLE is carried out have resulted in various versions of TMLE such as Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE) and Adaptive TMLE for improved finite-sample performance and automated variable selection. == History == The TMLE framework was first described by van der Laan and Rubin (2006) as a general approach for the construction of efficient plug-in estimators of smooth features of the data density. It was demonstrated in the context of causal inference and missing data problems. It was developed to address limitations of traditional doubly robust methods, such as Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW), by respecting the plug-in principle in the sense that it respects that the target parameter is a function of the data density that is an element of the statistical model. TMLE estimates the data density or relevant parts of it with machine learning and targets these machine learning fits before it is plugged in the target parameter mapping. In this manner, a TMLE always respects global knowledge and satisfies known bounds such as that the target parameter is a probability . Since its introduction, TMLE has been developed in a series of theoretical and applied papers, culminating in book-length treatments of the method and its applications to survival analysis, adaptive designs, and longitudinal data. == Methodology == At its core, TMLE is a two-step estimation procedure: Initial estimation: Machine learning methods (such as the Super Learner ensemble) are used to obtain flexible estimates of nuisance parameters, such as outcome regressions and propensity scores. Targeting step: The initial estimate is updated by solving a score equation (the efficient influence function) so that the final estimator is consistent, asymptotically normal, and efficient under mild regularity conditions. The targeted machine learning fit is then mapped into the corresponding estimator of the target parameter by simply plugging it in the target parameter mapping. This approach balances the bias–variance trade-off by combining data-adaptive estimation with semiparametric efficiency theory. TMLE is doubly robust, meaning it remains consistent if either the outcome model or the treatment model is consistently estimated. === Formula === Here we explain the TMLE of the average treatment effect of a binary treatment on an outcome adjusting for baseline covariates. Consider i.i.d. observations O i = ( W i , A i , Y i ) {\displaystyle O_{i}=(W_{i},A_{i},Y_{i})} from a distribution P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} , where W {\displaystyle W} are baseline covariates, A {\displaystyle A} is a binary treatment, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is an outcome. Let Q ¯ ( a , w ) = E [ Y ∣ A = a , W = w ] {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}(a,w)=\mathbb {E} [Y\mid A=a,W=w]} represent the outcome model and g ( a ∣ w ) = P ( A = a ∣ W = w ) {\displaystyle g(a\mid w)=P(A=a\mid W=w)} represent the propensity score. The average treatment effect (ATE) is given by ψ 0 = E { Q ¯ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ( 0 , W ) } . {\displaystyle \psi _{0}=\mathbb {E} \{{\bar {Q}}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}(0,W)\}.} A basic TMLE for the ATE proceeds as follows: Step 1: Estimate initial models. Obtain estimates Q ¯ ^ ( a , w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}(a,w)} and g ^ ( a ∣ w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}(a\mid w)} , often using flexible methods such as Super Learner. Step 2: Compute the clever covariate. Define: H ( A , W ) = A g ^ ( 1 ∣ W ) − 1 − A g ^ ( 0 ∣ W ) . {\displaystyle H(A,W)={\frac {A}{{\hat {g}}(1\mid W)}}-{\frac {1-A}{{\hat {g}}(0\mid W)}}.} Step 3: Estimate the fluctuation parameter. Fit a logistic regression of Y {\displaystyle Y} on H ( A , W ) {\displaystyle H(A,W)} with logit ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {logit} ({\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W))} as offset. This yields ε ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\varepsilon }}} , the MLE that solves the score equation: 1 n ∑ i = 1 n H ( A i , W i ) { Y i − Q ¯ ^ ε ( A i , W i ) } = 0. {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}H(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \{}Y_{i}-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{\varepsilon }(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \}}=0.} Step 4: Update the initial estimate. Apply the "blip" to obtain the targeted estimate: Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( A , W ) = expit ( logit ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) + ε ^ H ( A , W ) ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(A,W)=\operatorname {expit} {\Big (}\operatorname {logit} {\big (}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W){\big )}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H(A,W){\Big )}.} Step 5: Compute the TMLE. The ATE estimate is: ψ ^ TMLE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n [ Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 1 , W i ) − Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 0 , W i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big [}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(1,W_{i})-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(0,W_{i}){\big ]}.} Inference. The efficient influence function (EIF) for the ATE is: D ∗ ( O ) = H ( A , W ) { Y − Q ¯ ∗ ( A , W ) } + Q ¯ ∗ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ∗ ( 0 , W ) − ψ . {\displaystyle D^{}(O)=H(A,W)\{Y-{\bar {Q}}^{}(A,W)\}+{\bar {Q}}^{}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}^{}(0,W)-\psi .} The variance is estimated by σ ^ 2 = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 n ( D ∗ ( O i ) ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}^{2}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big (}D^{}(O_{i}){\big )}^{2}} , yielding Wald-type confidence intervals ψ ^ TMLE ± z 1 − α / 2 σ ^ / n {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}\pm z_{1-\alpha /2}\,{\hat {\sigma }}/{\sqrt {n}}} . Remark. For continuous outcomes, a linear fluctuation Q ¯ ^ ∗ = Q ¯ ^ + ε ^ H {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}={\hat {\bar {Q}}}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H} may be used instead. For bounded continuous outcomes, the logistic fluctuation (after rescaling Y {\displaystyle Y} to [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} ) is often preferred for improved finite-sample performance. == Applications == TMLE has been applied in: Epidemiology: Estimating causal effects of exposures and interventions in observational cohort studies. Clinical trials and real-world evidence: The Targeted Learning roadmap provides a structured framework for generating and validating real-world evidence (RWE), bridging randomized trials and observational data using TMLE and related estimation techniques. This approach enables transparency, sensitivity analysis, and stronger causal inference for regulatory and clinical trial contexts. High-dimensional settings: Integration with ensemble methods for causal effect estimation. TMLE has been successfully applied in pharmacoepidemiology where a large number of covariates are automatically selected to adjust for confounding. In a study of post–myocardial infarction statin use and 1-year mortality, TMLE demonstrated robust performance relative to inverse probability weighting in scenarios with hundreds of potential confounders. == Derivatives and extensions == Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE): A methodological extension of TMLE for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments, confounders, and censoring. It allows the estimation of dynamic treatment regimes and intervention-specific causal effects over time. This framework was originally introduced by van der Laan & Gruber (2012). Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE): Enhances finite-sample performance and variable selection by collaboratively fitting the treatment mechanism in conjunction with the target parameter. == Software == Several R packages implement TMLE and related methods: tmle: Functions for binary, categorical, and continuous outcomes. ltmle: Implementation for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments and outcomes. ctmle: Algorithms for collaborative TMLE and adaptive variable selection. SuperLearner: A theoretically grounded, cross-validated ensemble learning method that combines predictions from multiple algorithms to minimize predictive risk. Widely used in TMLE for estimating nuisance parameters. The original implementation is available as the R package SuperLearner. Recent machine learning platforms like H2O AutoML implement similar ensemble strategies, combining diverse learners in parallel and leveraging stacking and blending techniques, effectively functioning as a large-scale Super Learner.
Policy gradient method
Policy gradient methods are a class of reinforcement learning algorithms and a sub-class of policy optimization methods. Unlike value-based methods which learn a value function to derive a policy, policy optimization methods directly learn a policy function π {\displaystyle \pi } that selects actions without consulting a value function. For policy gradient to apply, the policy function π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} is parameterized by a differentiable parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } . == Overview == In policy-based RL, the actor is a parameterized policy function π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the parameters of the actor. The actor takes as argument the state of the environment s {\displaystyle s} and produces a probability distribution π θ ( ⋅ ∣ s ) {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }(\cdot \mid s)} . If the action space is discrete, then ∑ a π θ ( a ∣ s ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a\mid s)=1} . If the action space is continuous, then ∫ a π θ ( a ∣ s ) d a = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a\mid s)\mathrm {d} a=1} . The goal of policy optimization is to find some θ {\displaystyle \theta } that maximizes the expected episodic reward J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} : J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T γ t R t | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\gamma ^{t}R_{t}{\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is the discount factor, R t {\displaystyle R_{t}} is the reward at step t {\displaystyle t} , s 0 {\displaystyle s_{0}} is the starting state, and T {\displaystyle T} is the time-horizon (which can be infinite). The policy gradient is defined as ∇ θ J ( θ ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )} . Different policy gradient methods stochastically estimate the policy gradient in different ways. The goal of any policy gradient method is to iteratively maximize J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} by gradient ascent. Since the key part of any policy gradient method is the stochastic estimation of the policy gradient, they are also studied under the title of "Monte Carlo gradient estimation". == REINFORCE == === Policy gradient === The REINFORCE algorithm, introduced by Ronald J. Williams in 1992, was the first policy gradient method. It is based on the identity for the policy gradient ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t ∣ S t ) ∑ t = 0 T ( γ t R t ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}\mid S_{t})\;\sum _{t=0}^{T}(\gamma ^{t}R_{t}){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} which can be improved via the "causality trick" ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t ∣ S t ) ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}\mid S_{t})\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau }){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} Thus, we have an unbiased estimator of the policy gradient: ∇ θ J ( θ ) ≈ 1 N ∑ n = 1 N [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t , n ∣ S t , n ) ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ − t R τ , n ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )\approx {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{n=1}^{N}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t,n}\mid S_{t,n})\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau -t}R_{\tau ,n})\right]} where the index n {\displaystyle n} ranges over N {\displaystyle N} rollout trajectories using the policy π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} . The score function ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t ∣ S t ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}\mid S_{t})} can be interpreted as the direction in the parameter space that increases the probability of taking action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} in state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} . The policy gradient, then, is a weighted average of all possible directions to increase the probability of taking any action in any state, but weighted by reward signals, so that if taking a certain action in a certain state is associated with high reward, then that direction would be highly reinforced, and vice versa. === Algorithm === The REINFORCE algorithm is a loop: Rollout N {\displaystyle N} trajectories in the environment, using π θ t {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta _{t}}} as the policy function. Compute the policy gradient estimation: g i ← 1 N ∑ n = 1 N [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ t ln π θ ( A t , n ∣ S t , n ) ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ , n ) ] {\displaystyle g_{i}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{n=1}^{N}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta _{t}}\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t,n}\mid S_{t,n})\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau ,n})\right]} Update the policy by gradient ascent: θ i + 1 ← θ i + α i g i {\displaystyle \theta _{i+1}\leftarrow \theta _{i}+\alpha _{i}g_{i}} Here, α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} is the learning rate at update step i {\displaystyle i} . == Variance reduction == REINFORCE is an on-policy algorithm, meaning that the trajectories used for the update must be sampled from the current policy π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} . This can lead to high variance in the updates, as the returns R ( τ ) {\displaystyle R(\tau )} can vary significantly between trajectories. Many variants of REINFORCE have been introduced, under the title of variance reduction. === REINFORCE with baseline === A common way for reducing variance is the REINFORCE with baseline algorithm, based on the following identity: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t | S t ) ( ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ ) − b ( S t ) ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}|S_{t})\left(\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau })-b(S_{t})\right){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} for any function b : States → R {\displaystyle b:{\text{States}}\to \mathbb {R} } . This can be proven by applying the previous lemma. The algorithm uses the modified gradient estimator g i ← 1 N ∑ n = 1 N [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ t ln π θ ( A t , n | S t , n ) ( ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ , n ) − b i ( S t , n ) ) ] {\displaystyle g_{i}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{n=1}^{N}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta _{t}}\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t,n}|S_{t,n})\left(\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau ,n})-b_{i}(S_{t,n})\right)\right]} and the original REINFORCE algorithm is the special case where b i ≡ 0 {\displaystyle b_{i}\equiv 0} . === Actor-critic methods === If b i {\textstyle b_{i}} is chosen well, such that b i ( S t ) ≈ ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ ) = γ t V π θ i ( S t ) {\textstyle b_{i}(S_{t})\approx \sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau })=\gamma ^{t}V^{\pi _{\theta _{i}}}(S_{t})} , this could significantly decrease variance in the gradient estimation. That is, the baseline should be as close to the value function V π θ i ( S t ) {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta _{i}}}(S_{t})} as possible, approaching the ideal of: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t | S t ) ( ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ ) − γ t V π θ ( S t ) ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}|S_{t})\left(\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau })-\gamma ^{t}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{t})\right){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} Note that, as the policy π θ t {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta _{t}}} updates, the value function V π θ i ( S t ) {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta _{i}}}(S_{t})} updates as well, so the baseline should also be updated. One common approach is to train a separate function that estimates the value function, and use that as the baseline. This is one of the actor-critic methods, where the policy function is the actor and the value function is the critic. The Q-function Q π {\displaystyle Q^{\pi }} can also be used as the critic, since ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ t ≤ T γ t ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t | S t ) ⋅ Q π θ ( S t , A t ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=E_{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{0\leq t\leq T}\gamma ^{t}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}|S_{t})\cdot Q^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{t},A_{t}){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} by a similar argument using the tower law. Subtracting the value function as a baseline, we find that the advantage function A π ( S , A ) = Q π ( S , A ) − V π ( S ) {\displaystyle A^{\pi }(S,A)=Q^{\pi }(S,A)-V^{\pi }(S)} can be used as the critic as well: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ t ≤ T γ t ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t | S t ) ⋅ A π θ ( S t , A t ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=E_{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{0\leq t\leq T}\gamma ^{t}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}|S_{t})\cdot A^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{t},A_{t}){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} In summary, there are many unbiased estimators for ∇ θ J θ {\textstyle \nabla _{\theta }J_{\theta }} , all in the form of: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ t ≤ T ∇ θ ln π θ ( A t | S t ) ⋅ Ψ t | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=E_{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\su
Generalized iterative scaling
In statistics, generalized iterative scaling (GIS) and improved iterative scaling (IIS) are two early algorithms used to fit log-linear models, notably multinomial logistic regression (MaxEnt) classifiers and extensions of it such as MaxEnt Markov models and conditional random fields. These algorithms have been largely surpassed by gradient-based methods such as L-BFGS and coordinate descent algorithms.
Fatsecret
Fatsecret, commonly styled as fatsecret, is a mobile application, website and API that helps people achieve their weight loss goals and find accurate nutrition information. It also offers a weight loss clinic with coaching and medically supported programs. The platform powers global health apps. == History == Fatsecret was founded in 2006 in Melbourne, Australia by Lenny Moses and Rodney Moses. As of 2019, Lenny serves as the company's CEO. The company is known for its calorie counting and meal tracking app, and by April 2016, the company claimed to have 45 million users of its services. In August 2018, a premium version of its app was released. Since August 2009, the company has operated the Fatsecret Platform API, which allows access to its global food and nutrition database. Fatsecret reportedly had 900,000 downloads of its app in January 2020. In an analysis of several Health & Fitness app subcategories for the United States in January 2021, Fatsecret was reported to have the highest 30 day user retention rate of top Calorie Counter + Meal Planner for Weight Loss apps.
Multiple kernel learning
Multiple kernel learning refers to a set of machine learning methods that use a predefined set of kernels and learn an optimal linear or non-linear combination of kernels as part of the algorithm. Reasons to use multiple kernel learning include a) the ability to select for an optimal kernel and parameters from a larger set of kernels, reducing bias due to kernel selection while allowing for more automated machine learning methods, and b) combining data from different sources (e.g. sound and images from a video) that have different notions of similarity and thus require different kernels. Instead of creating a new kernel, multiple kernel algorithms can be used to combine kernels already established for each individual data source. Multiple kernel learning approaches have been used in many applications, such as event recognition in video, object recognition in images, and biomedical data fusion. == Algorithms == Multiple kernel learning algorithms have been developed for supervised, semi-supervised, as well as unsupervised learning. Most work has been done on the supervised learning case with linear combinations of kernels, however, many algorithms have been developed. The basic idea behind multiple kernel learning algorithms is to add an extra parameter to the minimization problem of the learning algorithm. As an example, consider the case of supervised learning of a linear combination of a set of n {\displaystyle n} kernels K {\displaystyle K} . We introduce a new kernel K ′ = ∑ i = 1 n β i K i {\displaystyle K'=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\beta _{i}K_{i}} , where β {\displaystyle \beta } is a vector of coefficients for each kernel. Because the kernels are additive (due to properties of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces), this new function is still a kernel. For a set of data X {\displaystyle X} with labels Y {\displaystyle Y} , the minimization problem can then be written as min β , c E ( Y , K ′ c ) + R ( K , c ) {\displaystyle \min _{\beta ,c}\mathrm {E} (Y,K'c)+R(K,c)} where E {\displaystyle \mathrm {E} } is an error function and R {\displaystyle R} is a regularization term. E {\displaystyle \mathrm {E} } is typically the square loss function (Tikhonov regularization) or the hinge loss function (for SVM algorithms), and R {\displaystyle R} is usually an ℓ n {\displaystyle \ell _{n}} norm or some combination of the norms (i.e. elastic net regularization). This optimization problem can then be solved by standard optimization methods. Adaptations of existing techniques such as the Sequential Minimal Optimization have also been developed for multiple kernel SVM-based methods. === Supervised learning === For supervised learning, there are many other algorithms that use different methods to learn the form of the kernel. The following categorization has been proposed by Gonen and Alpaydın (2011) ==== Fixed rules approaches ==== Fixed rules approaches such as the linear combination algorithm described above use rules to set the combination of the kernels. These do not require parameterization and use rules like summation and multiplication to combine the kernels. The weighting is learned in the algorithm. Other examples of fixed rules include pairwise kernels, which are of the form k ( ( x 1 i , x 1 j ) , ( x 2 i , x 2 j ) ) = k ( x 1 i , x 2 i ) k ( x 1 j , x 2 j ) + k ( x 1 i , x 2 j ) k ( x 1 j , x 2 i ) {\displaystyle k((x_{1i},x_{1j}),(x_{2i},x_{2j}))=k(x_{1i},x_{2i})k(x_{1j},x_{2j})+k(x_{1i},x_{2j})k(x_{1j},x_{2i})} . These pairwise approaches have been used in predicting protein-protein interactions. ==== Heuristic approaches ==== These algorithms use a combination function that is parameterized. The parameters are generally defined for each individual kernel based on single-kernel performance or some computation from the kernel matrix. Examples of these include the kernel from Tenabe et al. (2008). Letting π m {\displaystyle \pi _{m}} be the accuracy obtained using only K m {\displaystyle K_{m}} , and letting δ {\displaystyle \delta } be a threshold less than the minimum of the single-kernel accuracies, we can define β m = π m − δ ∑ h = 1 n ( π h − δ ) {\displaystyle \beta _{m}={\frac {\pi _{m}-\delta }{\sum _{h=1}^{n}(\pi _{h}-\delta )}}} Other approaches use a definition of kernel similarity, such as A ( K 1 , K 2 ) = ⟨ K 1 , K 2 ⟩ ⟨ K 1 , K 1 ⟩ ⟨ K 2 , K 2 ⟩ {\displaystyle A(K_{1},K_{2})={\frac {\langle K_{1},K_{2}\rangle }{\sqrt {\langle K_{1},K_{1}\rangle \langle K_{2},K_{2}\rangle }}}} Using this measure, Qui and Lane (2009) used the following heuristic to define β m = A ( K m , Y Y T ) ∑ h = 1 n A ( K h , Y Y T ) {\displaystyle \beta _{m}={\frac {A(K_{m},YY^{T})}{\sum _{h=1}^{n}A(K_{h},YY^{T})}}} ==== Optimization approaches ==== These approaches solve an optimization problem to determine parameters for the kernel combination function. This has been done with similarity measures and structural risk minimization approaches. For similarity measures such as the one defined above, the problem can be formulated as follows: max β , tr ( K t r a ′ ) = 1 , K ′ ≥ 0 A ( K t r a ′ , Y Y T ) . {\displaystyle \max _{\beta ,\operatorname {tr} (K'_{tra})=1,K'\geq 0}A(K'_{tra},YY^{T}).} where K t r a ′ {\displaystyle K'_{tra}} is the kernel of the training set. Structural risk minimization approaches that have been used include linear approaches, such as that used by Lanckriet et al. (2002). We can define the implausibility of a kernel ω ( K ) {\displaystyle \omega (K)} to be the value of the objective function after solving a canonical SVM problem. We can then solve the following minimization problem: min tr ( K t r a ′ ) = c ω ( K t r a ′ ) {\displaystyle \min _{\operatorname {tr} (K'_{tra})=c}\omega (K'_{tra})} where c {\displaystyle c} is a positive constant. Many other variations exist on the same idea, with different methods of refining and solving the problem, e.g. with nonnegative weights for individual kernels and using non-linear combinations of kernels. ==== Bayesian approaches ==== Bayesian approaches put priors on the kernel parameters and learn the parameter values from the priors and the base algorithm. For example, the decision function can be written as f ( x ) = ∑ i = 0 n α i ∑ m = 1 p η m K m ( x i m , x m ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{i=0}^{n}\alpha _{i}\sum _{m=1}^{p}\eta _{m}K_{m}(x_{i}^{m},x^{m})} η {\displaystyle \eta } can be modeled with a Dirichlet prior and α {\displaystyle \alpha } can be modeled with a zero-mean Gaussian and an inverse gamma variance prior. This model is then optimized using a customized multinomial probit approach with a Gibbs sampler. These methods have been used successfully in applications such as protein fold recognition and protein homology problems ==== Boosting approaches ==== Boosting approaches add new kernels iteratively until some stopping criteria that is a function of performance is reached. An example of this is the MARK model developed by Bennett et al. (2002) f ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N ∑ m = 1 P α i m K m ( x i m , x m ) + b {\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\sum _{m=1}^{P}\alpha _{i}^{m}K_{m}(x_{i}^{m},x^{m})+b} The parameters α i m {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}^{m}} and b {\displaystyle b} are learned by gradient descent on a coordinate basis. In this way, each iteration of the descent algorithm identifies the best kernel column to choose at each particular iteration and adds that to the combined kernel. The model is then rerun to generate the optimal weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} and b {\displaystyle b} . === Semisupervised learning === Semisupervised learning approaches to multiple kernel learning are similar to other extensions of supervised learning approaches. An inductive procedure has been developed that uses a log-likelihood empirical loss and group LASSO regularization with conditional expectation consensus on unlabeled data for image categorization. We can define the problem as follows. Let L = ( x i , y i ) {\displaystyle L={(x_{i},y_{i})}} be the labeled data, and let U = x i {\displaystyle U={x_{i}}} be the set of unlabeled data. Then, we can write the decision function as follows. f ( x ) = α 0 + ∑ i = 1 | L | α i K i ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\alpha _{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{|L|}\alpha _{i}K_{i}(x)} The problem can be written as min f L ( f ) + λ R ( f ) + γ Θ ( f ) {\displaystyle \min _{f}L(f)+\lambda R(f)+\gamma \Theta (f)} where L {\displaystyle L} is the loss function (weighted negative log-likelihood in this case), R {\displaystyle R} is the regularization parameter (Group LASSO in this case), and Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } is the conditional expectation consensus (CEC) penalty on unlabeled data. The CEC penalty is defined as follows. Let the marginal kernel density for all the data be g m π ( x ) = ⟨ ϕ m π , ψ m ( x ) ⟩ {\displaystyle g_{m}^{\pi }(x)=\langle \phi _{m}^{\pi },\psi _{m}(x)\rangle } where ψ m ( x ) = [ K m ( x 1 , x ) , … , K m ( x L , x ) ] T {\displaystyle \psi _{m}(x)=[K_{m}(x_{1},x),\ldots ,K_{m}(x_{L},x)]^{T}} (the kernel distance between the labe