Digital media in education

Digital media in education refers to the use of digital technologies to support and enhance teaching and learning processes. This includes the application of multiple digital software applications, devices, and online platforms as tools for learning. Learners interact with these technologies to access, analyze, evaluate, and create media content and communication in various forms. The integration of digital media in education has dramatically increased over time, significantly transforming traditional educational practices. When viewed through a global and inclusive lens, digital education should be guided by principles of equity, inclusion, and public infrastructure to ensure meaningful participation of all learners. == History == === 20th century === Technological advances in the 20th century, particularly the invention of the Internet, laid the foundation for incorporating technology into education. In the early 1900s, the overhead projector and instructional radio broadcasts were among the first technologies used for educational purposes. The introduction of computers in classrooms occurred in 1950, when a flight simulation program was developed to train pilots at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. However, access to computers remained extremely limited for several decades. In 1964, John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz developed the BASIC programming language, which simplified computer interaction and introduced time-sharing, enabling multiple users to work on the same system simultaneously. This innovation made computing increasingly accessible for educational settings. By the 1980s, schools began to show more interest in computers as companies released mass-market devices to the public. Networking further enabled the interconnection of computers into unified communication systems, which proved more efficient and cost-effective than previous stand-alone machines. This development prompted wider adoption of computing in educational institutions. The invention of the World Wide Web in 1992 further simplified internet navigation and sparked further interest in educational settings. Initially, computers were integrated into school curricula for tasks such as word processing, spreadsheet creation, and data organization. By the late 1990s, the Internet became a research tool, functioning as a vast library. By 1999, 99% of public school teachers in the United States reported having access to at least one computer in their schools, and 84% had a computer available in their classrooms. The emergence of World Wide Web also contributed to the development of learning management systems (LMS), which allowed educators to create online teaching environments for content storage, student activities, discussions, and assignments. Advances in digital compression and high-speed Internet made video creation and distribution more affordable, fostering the use of the systems designed for recording lectures. These tools were often incorporated into learning management platforms, supporting the expansion of fully online courses. === 21st century === By 2002, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began offering recorded lectures to the public, marking a significant milestone in the movement toward accessible online education. The launch of YouTube in 2005 further transformed educational content distribution. Educators increasingly uploaded lectures and instructional videos on platforms with initiatives like Khan Academy, which was active in 2006, contributing to You Tube's role as a prominent educational resource. In 2007, Apple launched iTunesU, another platform for sharing educational resources and videos. Meanwhile, learning management systems gained popularity, with Blackboard and Canvas becoming two of the most widely used platforms with Canvas's release in 2008. That same year also marked the introduction of the first Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), which provided open access to webinars and expert-led instructions for global learners. As technology evolved, traditional projectors were gradually replaced by interactive whiteboards, which enabled educators to integrate digital tools more effectively in their classrooms. By 2009, 97% of classrooms in the United States had at least one computer, and 93% had Internet access. The COVID-19 pandemic, which forced schools across the world to close, significantly impacted education with schools shifting to distance education. Students attended classes remotely using devices such as laptops, phones, and tablets, supported by digital platforms that facilitated at-home learning environments. However, adapting assessment methods to the new learning environment posed certain challenges. A study conducted by Eddie M. Mulenga and José M. Marbán on Zambian students during the pandemic revealed difficulties in adapting to digital learning, particularly in subjects like mathematics. Similar issues were reported among students in Romania, where the transition to virtual learning presented significant obstacles in engagement and adaptability. === Post-pandemic developments === In the period following the onset of COVID-19, education systems worldwide rapidly adopted digital solutions to maintain continuity of learning and teaching. By the end of March 2020, all 46 OECD and partners countries closed some or all of their schools nationwide. By June 2020, the length of school closures in these countries ranged from 7 to over 18 weeks. These disruptions in formal education prompted governments and educators to quickly adopt digital learning. This global shift to online education highlighted considerable inequalities in digital access, although many systems struggled with inequitable access, especially in regions lacking devices, stable internet connections, or conducive home learning environments. Stimultaneously, commercial educational technology (ed-tech) companies introduced rapid digital solutions to the disruption caused by the pandemic. This led to what has been described as a "seller's market," where the urgency of implementation may cause the prioritization of availability and scale over pedagogical and equity considerations. In the post-pandemic era, digital media in education continues to evolve. It increasingly intersects with artificial intelligence (AI) technologies such as adaptive learning platforms, AI-enabled content generation, and personalized learning environments. These tools enhance global engagement and access but also raise concerns about infrastructure, inclusivity, ethical implementation as well as critical pedagogies. Scholars recommend that educators and policymakers adopt inclusive practices, prioritize equitable infrastructure, and develop critical digital literacy. Facer and Selwyn also emphasize the need for public digital infrastructure and sustainable and justice-oriented policies that empower all learners. Overall, these perspectives reflect a growing consensus that digital media in education should be implemented critically to promote inclusive, multimodal, and future-oriented learning environments.

Common data model

A common data model (CDM) can refer to any standardised data model which allows for data and information exchange between different applications and data sources. Common data models aim to standardise logical infrastructure so that related applications can "operate on and share the same data", and can be seen as a way to "organize data from many sources that are in different formats into a standard structure". A common data model has been described as one of the components of a "strong information system". A standardised common data model has also been described as a typical component of a well designed agile application besides a common communication protocol. Providing a single common data model within an organisation is one of the typical tasks of a data warehouse. == Examples of common data models == === Border crossings === X-trans.eu was a cross-border pilot project between the Free State of Bavaria (Germany) and Upper Austria with the aim of developing a faster procedure for the application and approval of cross-border large-capacity transports. The portal was based on a common data model that contained all the information required for approval. === Climate data === The Climate Data Store Common Data Model is a common data model set up by the Copernicus Climate Change Service for harmonising essential climate variables from different sources and data providers. === General information technology === Within service-oriented architecture, S-RAMP is a specification released by HP, IBM, Software AG, TIBCO, and Red Hat which defines a common data model for SOA repositories as well as an interaction protocol to facilitate the use of common tooling and sharing of data. Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) is an open standard for inter-operation of different content management systems over the internet, and provides a common data model for typed files and folders used with version control. The NetCDF software libraries for array-oriented scientific data implements a common data model called the NetCDF Java common data model, which consists of three layers built on top of each other to add successively richer semantics. === Health === Within genomic and medical data, the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) research program established under the U.S. National Institutes of Health has created a common data model for claims and electronic health records which can accommodate data from different sources around the world. PCORnet, which was developed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, is another common data model for health data including electronic health records and patient claims. The Sentinel Common Data Model was initially started as Mini-Sentinel in 2008. It is used by the Sentinel Initiative of the USA's Food and Drug Administration. The Generalized Data Model was first published in 2019. It was designed to be a stand-alone data model as well as to allow for further transformation into other data models (e.g., OMOP, PCORNet, Sentinel). It has a hierarchical structure to flexibly capture relationships among data elements. The JANUS clinical trial data repository also provides a common data model which is based on the SDTM standard to represent clinical data submitted to regulatory agencies, such as tabulation datasets, patient profiles, listings, etc. === Logistics === SX000i is a specification developed jointly by the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) and the American Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) to provide information, guidance and instructions to ensure compatibility and the commonality. The associated SX002D specification contains a common data model. === Microsoft Common Data Model === The Microsoft Common Data Model is a collection of many standardised extensible data schemas with entities, attributes, semantic metadata, and relationships, which represent commonly used concepts and activities in various businesses areas. It is maintained by Microsoft and its partners, and is published on GitHub. Microsoft's Common Data Model is used amongst others in Microsoft Dataverse and with various Microsoft Power Platform and Microsoft Dynamics 365 services. === Rail transport === RailTopoModel is a common data model for the railway sector. === Other === There are many more examples of various common data models for different uses published by different sources.

Distribution learning theory

The distributional learning theory or learning of probability distribution is a framework in computational learning theory. It has been proposed from Michael Kearns, Yishay Mansour, Dana Ron, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Robert Schapire and Linda Sellie in 1994 and it was inspired from the PAC-framework introduced by Leslie Valiant. In this framework the input is a number of samples drawn from a distribution that belongs to a specific class of distributions. The goal is to find an efficient algorithm that, based on these samples, determines with high probability the distribution from which the samples have been drawn. Because of its generality, this framework has been used in a large variety of different fields like machine learning, approximation algorithms, applied probability and statistics. This article explains the basic definitions, tools and results in this framework from the theory of computation point of view. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} be the support of the distributions of interest. As in the original work of Kearns et al. if X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} is finite it can be assumed without loss of generality that X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle \textstyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} where n {\displaystyle \textstyle n} is the number of bits that have to be used in order to represent any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} . We focus in probability distributions over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . There are two possible representations of a probability distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . probability distribution function (or evaluator) an evaluator E D {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} and outputs a real number E D [ y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]} which denotes the probability that of y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} according to D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} , i.e. E D [ y ] = Pr [ Y = y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]=\Pr[Y=y]} if Y ∼ D {\displaystyle \textstyle Y\sim D} . generator a generator G D {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input a string of truly random bits y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} and outputs G D [ y ] ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}[y]\in X} according to the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Generator can be interpreted as a routine that simulates sampling from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} given a sequence of fair coin tosses. A distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} is called to have a polynomial generator (respectively evaluator) if its generator (respectively evaluator) exists and can be computed in polynomial time. Let C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} a class of distribution over X, that is C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} is a set such that every D ∈ C X {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C_{X}} is a probability distribution with support X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . The C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} can also be written as C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} for simplicity. In order to evaluate learnability, it is necessary to have a way to measure how well an approximated distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} fits the sampled distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . There are several ways to measure the divergence between two distributions. Three common possibilities are Kullback–Leibler divergence Total variation distance of probability measures Kolmogorov distance Total variation and Kolmogorov distance are true metrics, while KL divergence is not (it lacks symmetry). These measures are ordered by convergence strength: closeness in KL divergence implies closeness in total variation (via Pinsker's inequality), which in turn implies closeness in Kolmogorov distance. Therefore, a learnability result proven under KL divergence automatically holds under the weaker measures, but not vice versa. Since certain measures may be more appropriate in specific applications, we will use d ( D , D ′ ) {\displaystyle \textstyle d(D,D')} to denote a selected divergence between the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} and the distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} . The basic input that we use in order to learn a distribution is a number of samples drawn by this distribution. For the computational point of view the assumption is that such a sample is given in a constant amount of time. So it's like having access to an oracle G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} that returns a sample from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Sometimes the interest is, apart from measuring the time complexity, to measure the number of samples that have to be used in order to learn a specific distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} in class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} . This quantity is called sample complexity of the learning algorithm. In order for the problem of distribution learning to be more clear consider the problem of supervised learning as defined in. In this framework of statistical learning theory a training set S = { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \textstyle S=\{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} and the goal is to find a target function f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} that minimizes some loss function, e.g. the square loss function. More formally f = arg ⁡ min g ∫ V ( y , g ( x ) ) d ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f=\arg \min _{g}\int V(y,g(x))d\rho (x,y)} , where V ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle V(\cdot ,\cdot )} is the loss function, e.g. V ( y , z ) = ( y − z ) 2 {\displaystyle V(y,z)=(y-z)^{2}} and ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} the probability distribution according to which the elements of the training set are sampled. If the conditional probability distribution ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle \rho _{x}(y)} is known then the target function has the closed form f ( x ) = ∫ y y d ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\int _{y}yd\rho _{x}(y)} . So the set S {\displaystyle S} is a set of samples from the probability distribution ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} . Now the goal of distributional learning theory if to find ρ {\displaystyle \rho } given S {\displaystyle S} which can be used to find the target function f {\displaystyle f} . Definition of learnability A class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is called efficiently learnable if for every ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \epsilon >0} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle \textstyle 0<\delta \leq 1} given access to G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} for an unknown distribution D ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C} , there exists a polynomial time algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} , called learning algorithm of C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} , that outputs a generator or an evaluator of a distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} such that Pr [ d ( D , D ′ ) ≤ ϵ ] ≥ 1 − δ {\displaystyle \Pr[d(D,D')\leq \epsilon ]\geq 1-\delta } If we know that D ′ ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D'\in C} then A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called proper learning algorithm, otherwise is called improper learning algorithm. In some settings the class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is a class with well known distributions which can be described by a set of parameters. For instance C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} could be the class of all the Gaussian distributions N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle \textstyle N(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} . In this case the algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} should be able to estimate the parameters μ , σ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu ,\sigma } . In this case A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called parameter learning algorithm. Obviously the parameter learning for simple distributions is a very well studied field that is called statistical estimation and there is a very long bibliography on different estimators for different kinds of simple known distributions. But distributions learning theory deals with learning class of distributions that have more complicated description. == First results == In their seminal work, Kearns et al. deal with the case where A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is described in term of a finite polynomial sized circuit and they proved the following for some specific classes of distribution. O R {\displaystyle \textstyle OR} gate distributions for this kind of distributions there is no polynomial-sized evaluator, unless # P ⊆ P / poly {\displaystyle \textstyle \#P\subseteq P/{\text{poly}}} . On the other hand, this class is efficiently learnable with generator. Parity gate distributions this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Mixtures of Hamming Balls this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Probabilistic Finite Automata this class is not efficiently learnable with evaluator under the Noisy Parity Assumption which is an impossibility assumption in the PAC learning fram

XGBoost

XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) is an open-source software library which provides a regularizing gradient boosting framework for C++, Java, Python, R, Julia, Perl, and Scala. It works on Linux, Microsoft Windows, and macOS. From the project description, it aims to provide a "Scalable, Portable and Distributed Gradient Boosting (GBM, GBRT, GBDT) Library". It runs on a single machine, as well as the distributed processing frameworks Apache Hadoop, Apache Spark, Apache Flink, and Dask. XGBoost gained much popularity and attention in the mid-2010s as the algorithm of choice for many winning teams of machine learning competitions. == History == XGBoost initially started as a research project by Tianqi Chen as part of the Distributed (Deep) Machine Learning Community (DMLC) group at the University of Washington. Initially, it began as a terminal application which could be configured using a libsvm configuration file. It became well known in the ML competition circles after its use in the winning solution of the Higgs Machine Learning Challenge. Soon after, the Python and R packages were built, and XGBoost now has package implementations for Java, Scala, Julia, Perl, and other languages. This brought the library to more developers and contributed to its popularity among the Kaggle community, where it has been used for a large number of competitions. It was soon integrated with a number of other packages making it easier to use in their respective communities. It has now been integrated with scikit-learn for Python users and with the caret package for R users. It can also be integrated into Data Flow frameworks like Apache Spark, Apache Hadoop, and Apache Flink using the abstracted Rabit and XGBoost4J. XGBoost is also available on OpenCL for FPGAs. An efficient, scalable implementation of XGBoost has been published by Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. While the XGBoost model often achieves higher accuracy than a single decision tree, it sacrifices the intrinsic interpretability of decision trees. For example, following the path that a decision tree takes to make its decision is trivial and self-explained, but following the paths of hundreds or thousands of trees is much harder. == Features == Salient features of XGBoost which make it different from other gradient boosting algorithms include: Clever penalization of trees A proportional shrinking of leaf nodes Newton Boosting Extra randomization parameter Implementation on single, distributed systems and out-of-core computation Automatic feature selection Theoretically justified weighted quantile sketching for efficient computation Parallel tree structure boosting with sparsity Efficient cacheable block structure for decision tree training == The algorithm == XGBoost works as Newton–Raphson in function space unlike gradient boosting that works as gradient descent in function space, a second order Taylor approximation is used in the loss function to make the connection to Newton–Raphson method. A generic unregularized XGBoost algorithm is: == Parameters == XGBoost has parameters which can be specified to affect how it functions and performs. Some parameters include: Learning rate (also known as the "step size" or “"shrinkage"), it is a number between 0 and 1 (default is 0.3), which determines the rate the algorithm learns from each iteration. n_estimators, sets the number of trees to be built in the ensemble, where more trees generally increases the complexity of the model, but can lead to overfitting with too many trees. Gamma (also known as Lagrange multiplier or the minimum loss reduction parameter), controls the minimum amount of loss reduction required to make a further split on a leaf node of the tree. The default in XGBoost is 0 . max_depth, represents how deeply each tree in the boosting process can grow during training, where the default is 6. == Awards == John Chambers Award (2016) High Energy Physics meets Machine Learning award (HEP meets ML) (2016)

Parity benchmark

Parity problems are widely used as benchmark problems in genetic programming but inherited from the artificial neural network community. Parity is calculated by summing all the binary inputs and reporting if the sum is odd or even. This is considered difficult because: a very simple artificial neural network cannot solve it, and all inputs need to be considered and a change to any one of them changes the answer.

Yahoo Groups

Yahoo! Groups was a free-to-use system of electronic mailing lists offered by Yahoo!. Prior to February 2020, Yahoo! Groups was one of the world's largest collections of online discussion boards. It allowed members to subscribe to various groups, read subscribed discussions online, view and share photos, files and bookmarks within a group, access a group calendar, create polls for group members, and receive email notifications of new discussion topics. Some groups were simply announcement boards, to which only the group moderators could post, while others were discussion forums. Depending on each group's settings, membership could be open to everyone or only to invited or approved people. On February 1, 2020, Yahoo! removed online access to discussions and all other features except simple membership management, essentially turning all groups into mailing lists, and on October 13, 2020, it announced that Yahoo Groups would shut down completely on December 15, 2020. == History == In 1998 Yahoo! Clubs was launched as an extension of services developed by Yahoo! Messenger. In August 2000 Yahoo acquired eGroups.com. Yahoo! Groups was launched in early 2001 as an integration of technology from eGroups.com and community groups from both eGroups.com and Yahoo! Clubs. In 2001 Yahoo! deleted adult groups from its search directory, making it very difficult to locate Yahoo! groups with adult content. The Groups Updates Email feature was introduced in 2010. It summarized, in a single email, all the updates that occurred every twenty-four hours in all groups. In September 2010, a major facelift was rolled out, making Yahoo! Groups look very similar to Facebook. In December, Yahoo! Groups Japan emailed its users and posted a notice on its homepage, to announce that its service, which commenced in February 2004, would be closing on May 28, 2014. In October 2019, Yahoo! announced that all content that had been posted to Yahoo! Groups will be deleted on December 14, 2019; that date was later amended to January 31, 2020. Yahoo! announced that adding new content would be blocked on October 28, 2019. Once the content was deleted, users of Yahoo! Groups were only able to browse the group directory, request invitations and, if members of a group, send messages to that group. On October 13, 2020, Yahoo! announced they would be shutting down Yahoo! Groups on December 15, 2020. The site was closed down a few days after the advertised date, displaying a message that the service was officially shut down. This message stopped appearing at the end of January 2021 and the Yahoo! Groups web address began redirecting to the main Yahoo! page. === Criticism and controversy === On August 31, 2010, Yahoo! Groups started rolling out a major software change, which was denounced by a large number of users. The re-model was completely abandoned on January 12, 2011. == Site statistics == In August 2008, Yahoo! Group staff reported that there were 113 million users, and nine million Groups using 22 languages. In July 2010, the web analytics website Quantcast reported around 915 thousand unique visitors daily to the Yahoo! Groups website (US). In January 2011, that number had increased to 933 thousand unique visitors daily. The number did not include Yahoo! Group members who accessed the Groups site via email. In September 2010, at its "Product Runway" event, Yahoo! told reporters that Yahoo! Groups had 115 million group members and that there were 10 million Yahoo! groups. == Archives ==

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