In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri
Exploration–exploitation dilemma
The exploration–exploitation dilemma, also known as the explore–exploit tradeoff, is a fundamental concept in decision-making that arises in many domains. It is depicted as the balancing act between two opposing strategies. Exploitation involves choosing the best option based on current knowledge of the system (which may be incomplete or misleading), while exploration involves trying out new options that may lead to better outcomes in the future at the expense of an exploitation opportunity. Finding the optimal balance between these two strategies is a crucial challenge in many decision-making problems whose goal is to maximize long-term benefits. == Application in machine learning == In the context of machine learning, the exploration–exploitation tradeoff is fundamental in reinforcement learning (RL), a type of machine learning that involves training agents to make decisions based on feedback from the environment. Crucially, this feedback may be incomplete or delayed. The agent must decide whether to exploit the current best-known policy or explore new policies to improve its performance. === Multi-armed bandit methods === The multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem was a classic example of the tradeoff, and many methods were developed for it, such as epsilon-greedy, Thompson sampling, and the upper confidence bound (UCB). See the page on MAB for details. In more complex RL situations than the MAB problem, the agent can treat each choice as a MAB, where the payoff is the expected future reward. For example, if the agent performs an epsilon-greedy method, then the agent will often "pull the best lever" by picking the action that had the best predicted expected reward (exploit). However, it would pick a random action with probability epsilon (explore). Monte Carlo tree search, for example, uses a variant of the UCB method. === Exploration problems === There are some problems that make exploration difficult. Sparse reward. If rewards occur only once a long while, then the agent might not persist in exploring. Furthermore, if the space of actions is large, then the sparse reward would mean the agent would not be guided by the reward to find a good direction for deeper exploration. A standard example is Montezuma's Revenge. Deceptive reward. If some early actions give immediate small reward, but other actions give later large reward, then the agent might be lured away from exploring the other actions. Noisy TV problem. If certain observations are irreducibly noisy (such as a television showing random images), then the agent might be trapped exploring those observations (watching the television). === Exploration reward === This section based on. The exploration reward (also called exploration bonus) methods convert the exploration-exploitation dilemma into a balance of exploitations. That is, instead of trying to get the agent to balance exploration and exploitation, exploration is simply treated as another form of exploitation, and the agent simply attempts to maximize the sum of rewards from exploration and exploitation. The exploration reward can be treated as a form of intrinsic reward. We write these as r t i , r t e {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i},r_{t}^{e}} , meaning the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards at time step t {\displaystyle t} . However, exploration reward is different from exploitation in two regards: The reward of exploitation is not freely chosen, but given by the environment, but the reward of exploration may be picked freely. Indeed, there are many different ways to design r t i {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}} described below. The reward of exploitation is usually stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state gives the same reward), but the reward of exploration is non-stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state should give less and less reward). Count-based exploration uses N n ( s ) {\displaystyle N_{n}(s)} , the number of visits to a state s {\displaystyle s} during the time-steps 1 : n {\displaystyle 1:n} , to calculate the exploration reward. This is only possible in small and discrete state space. Density-based exploration extends count-based exploration by using a density model ρ n ( s ) {\displaystyle \rho _{n}(s)} . The idea is that, if a state has been visited, then nearby states are also partly-visited. In maximum entropy exploration, the entropy of the agent's policy π {\displaystyle \pi } is included as a term in the intrinsic reward. That is, r t i = − ∑ a π ( a | s t ) ln π ( a | s t ) + ⋯ {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=-\sum _{a}\pi (a|s_{t})\ln \pi (a|s_{t})+\cdots } . === Prediction-based === This section based on. The forward dynamics model is a function for predicting the next state based on the current state and the current action: f : ( s t , a t ) ↦ s t + 1 {\displaystyle f:(s_{t},a_{t})\mapsto s_{t+1}} . The forward dynamics model is trained as the agent plays. The model becomes better at predicting state transition for state-action pairs that had been done many times. A forward dynamics model can define an exploration reward by r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − s t + 1 ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-s_{t+1}\|_{2}^{2}} . That is, the reward is the squared-error of the prediction compared to reality. This rewards the agent to perform state-action pairs that had not been done many times. This is however susceptible to the noisy TV problem. Dynamics model can be run in latent space. That is, r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-\phi (s_{t+1})\|_{2}^{2}} for some featurizer ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The featurizer can be the identity function (i.e. ϕ ( x ) = x {\displaystyle \phi (x)=x} ), randomly generated, the encoder-half of a variational autoencoder, etc. A good featurizer improves forward dynamics exploration. The Intrinsic Curiosity Module (ICM) method trains simultaneously a forward dynamics model and a featurizer. The featurizer is trained by an inverse dynamics model, which is a function for predicting the current action based on the features of the current and the next state: g : ( ϕ ( s t ) , ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ) ↦ a t {\displaystyle g:(\phi (s_{t}),\phi (s_{t+1}))\mapsto a_{t}} . By optimizing the inverse dynamics, both the inverse dynamics model and the featurizer are improved. Then, the improved featurizer improves the forward dynamics model, which improves the exploration of the agent. Random Network Distillation (RND) method attempts to solve this problem by teacher–student distillation. Instead of a forward dynamics model, it has two models f , f ′ {\displaystyle f,f'} . The f ′ {\displaystyle f'} teacher model is fixed, and the f {\displaystyle f} student model is trained to minimize ‖ f ( s ) − f ′ ( s ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|f(s)-f'(s)\|_{2}^{2}} on states s {\displaystyle s} . As a state is visited more and more, the student network becomes better at predicting the teacher. Meanwhile, the prediction error is also an exploration reward for the agent, and so the agent learns to perform actions that result in higher prediction error. Thus, we have a student network attempting to minimize the prediction error, while the agent attempting to maximize it, resulting in exploration. The states are normalized by subtracting a running average and dividing a running variance, which is necessary since the teacher model is frozen. The rewards are normalized by dividing with a running variance. Exploration by disagreement trains an ensemble of forward dynamics models, each on a random subset of all ( s t , a t , s t + 1 ) {\displaystyle (s_{t},a_{t},s_{t+1})} tuples. The exploration reward is the variance of the models' predictions. === Noise === For neural network–based agents, the NoisyNet method changes some of its neural network modules by noisy versions. That is, some network parameters are random variables from a probability distribution. The parameters of the distribution are themselves learnable. For example, in a linear layer y = W x + b {\displaystyle y=Wx+b} , both W , b {\displaystyle W,b} are sampled from Gaussian distributions N ( μ W , Σ W ) , N ( μ b , Σ b ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{W},\Sigma _{W}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b})} at every step, and the parameters μ W , Σ W , μ b , Σ b {\displaystyle \mu _{W},\Sigma _{W},\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b}} are learned via the reparameterization trick.
Linguamatics
Linguamatics, headquartered in Cambridge, England, with offices in the United States and UK, is a provider of text mining systems through software licensing and services, primarily for pharmaceutical and healthcare applications. Founded in 2001, the company was purchased by IQVIA in January 2019. == Technology == The company develops enterprise search tools for the life sciences sector. The core natural language processing engine (I2E) uses a federated architecture to incorporate data from 3rd party resources. Initially developed to be used interactively through a graphic user interface, the core software also has an application programming interface that can be used to automate searches. LabKey, Penn Medicine, Atrius Health and Mercy all use Linguamatics software to extract electronic health record data into data warehouses. Linguamatics software is used by 17 of the top 20 global pharmaceutical companies, the US Food and Drug Administration, as well as healthcare providers. == Software community == The core software, "I2E", is used by a number of companies to either extend their own software or to publish their data. Copyright Clearance Center uses I2E to produce searchable indexes of material that would otherwise be unsearchable due to copyright. Thomson Reuters produces Cortellis Informatics Clinical Text Analytics, which depends on I2E to make clinical data accessible and searchable. Pipeline Pilot can integrate I2E as part of a workflow. ChemAxon can be used alongside I2E to allow named entity recognition of chemicals within unstructured data. Data sources include MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA Drug Labels, PubMed Central, and Patent Abstracts.
Loss function
In mathematical optimization and decision theory, a loss function or cost function (sometimes also called an error function) is a function that maps an event or values of one or more variables onto a real number intuitively representing some "cost" associated with the event. An optimization problem seeks to minimize a loss function. An objective function is either a loss function or its opposite (in specific domains, variously called a reward function, a profit function, a utility function, a fitness function, etc.), in which case it is to be maximized. The loss function could include terms from several levels of the hierarchy. In statistics, typically a loss function is used for parameter estimation, and the event in question is some function of the difference between estimated and true values for an instance of data. The concept, as old as Laplace, was reintroduced in statistics by Abraham Wald in the middle of the 20th century. In the context of economics, for example, this is usually economic cost or regret. In classification, it is the penalty for an incorrect classification of an example. In actuarial science, it is used in an insurance context to model benefits paid over premiums, particularly since the works of Harald Cramér in the 1920s. In optimal control, the loss is the penalty for failing to achieve a desired value. In financial risk management, the function is mapped to a monetary loss. == Examples == === Regret === Leonard J. Savage argued that using non-Bayesian methods such as minimax, the loss function should be based on the idea of regret, i.e., the loss associated with a decision should be the difference between the consequences of the best decision that could have been made under circumstances will be known and the decision that was in fact taken before they were known. === Quadratic loss function === The use of a quadratic loss function is common, for example when using least squares techniques. It is often more mathematically tractable than other loss functions because of the properties of variances, as well as being symmetric: an error above the target causes the same loss as the same magnitude of error below the target. If the target is t {\displaystyle t} , then a quadratic loss function is λ ( x ) = C ( t − x ) 2 {\displaystyle \lambda (x)=C(t-x)^{2}\;} for some constant C {\displaystyle C} ; the value of the constant makes no difference to a decision, and can be ignored by setting it equal to 1. This is also known as the squared error loss (SEL). Many common statistics, including t-tests, regression models, design of experiments, and much else, use least squares methods applied using linear regression theory, which is based on the quadratic loss function. The quadratic loss function is also used in linear-quadratic optimal control problems. In these problems, even in the absence of uncertainty, it may not be possible to achieve the desired values of all target variables. Often loss is expressed as a quadratic form in the deviations of the variables of interest from their desired values; this approach is tractable because it results in linear first-order conditions. In the context of stochastic control, the expected value of the quadratic form is used. The quadratic loss assigns more importance to outliers than to the true data due to its square nature, so alternatives like the Huber, log-cosh and SMAE losses are used when the data has many large outliers. === 0-1 loss function === In statistics and decision theory, a frequently used loss function is the 0-1 loss function L ( y ^ , y ) = { 0 if y = y ^ 1 if y ≠ y ^ {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)={\begin{cases}0&{\text{if }}y={\hat {y}}\\1&{\text{if }}y\neq {\hat {y}}\end{cases}}} In information theory, this loss function is known as Hamming distortion. == Constructing loss and objective functions == In many applications, objective functions, including loss functions as a particular case, are determined by the problem formulation. In other situations, the decision maker’s preference must be elicited and represented by a scalar-valued function (called also utility function) in a form suitable for optimization — the problem that Ragnar Frisch has highlighted in his Nobel Prize lecture. The existing methods for constructing objective functions are collected in the proceedings of two dedicated conferences. In particular, Andranik Tangian showed that the most usable objective functions — quadratic and additive — are determined by a few indifference points. He used this property in the models for constructing these objective functions from either ordinal or cardinal data that were elicited through computer-assisted interviews with decision makers. Among other things, he constructed objective functions to optimally distribute budgets for 16 Westfalian universities and the European subsidies for equalizing unemployment rates among 271 German regions. == Expected loss == In some contexts, the value of the loss function itself is a random quantity because it depends on the outcome of a random variable X {\displaystyle X} . === Statistics === Both frequentist and Bayesian statistical theory involve making a decision based on the expected value of the loss function; however, this quantity is defined differently under the two paradigms. ==== Frequentist expected loss ==== We first define the expected loss in the frequentist context. It is obtained by taking the expected value with respect to the probability distribution, P θ {\displaystyle P_{\theta }} , of the observed data, X {\displaystyle X} . This is also referred to as the risk function of the decision rule δ {\displaystyle \delta } and the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } . Here the decision rule depends on the outcome of X {\displaystyle X} . The risk function is given by: R ( θ , δ ) = E θ L ( θ , δ ( X ) ) = ∫ X L ( θ , δ ( x ) ) d P θ ( x ) . {\displaystyle R(\theta ,\delta )=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }L{\big (}\theta ,\delta (X){\big )}=\int _{X}L{\big (}\theta ,\delta (x){\big )}\,\mathrm {d} P_{\theta }(x).} Here, θ {\displaystyle \theta } is a fixed but possibly unknown state of nature, X {\displaystyle X} is a vector of observations stochastically drawn from a population, E θ {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{\theta }} is the expectation over all population values of X {\displaystyle X} , d P θ {\displaystyle \mathrm {d} P_{\theta }} is a probability measure over the event space of X {\displaystyle X} (parametrized by θ {\displaystyle \theta } ) and the integral is evaluated over the entire support of X {\displaystyle X} . ==== Bayes Risk ==== In a Bayesian approach, the expectation is calculated using the prior distribution π ∗ {\displaystyle \pi ^{}} of the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } : ρ ( π ∗ , a ) = ∫ Θ ∫ X L ( θ , a ( x ) ) d P ( x | θ ) d π ∗ ( θ ) = ∫ X ∫ Θ L ( θ , a ( x ) ) d π ∗ ( θ | x ) d M ( x ) {\displaystyle \rho (\pi ^{},a)=\int _{\Theta }\int _{\mathbf {X}}L(\theta ,a({\mathbf {x}}))\,\mathrm {d} P({\mathbf {x}}\vert \theta )\,\mathrm {d} \pi ^{}(\theta )=\int _{\mathbf {X}}\int _{\Theta }L(\theta ,a({\mathbf {x}}))\,\mathrm {d} \pi ^{}(\theta \vert {\mathbf {x}})\,\mathrm {d} M({\mathbf {x}})} where M ( x ) {\displaystyle M(\mathbf {x} )} is known as the predictive likelihood wherein θ {\displaystyle \theta } has been "integrated out," π ∗ ( θ | x ) {\displaystyle \pi ^{}(\theta |\mathbf {x} )} is the posterior distribution, and the order of integration has been changed. One then should choose the action a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{}} which minimises this expected loss, which is referred to as Bayes Risk. In the latter equation, the integrand inside d x {\displaystyle \mathrm {d} x} is known as the Posterior Risk, and minimising it with respect to decision a {\displaystyle a} also minimizes the overall Bayes Risk. This optimal decision, a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{}} is known as the Bayes (decision) Rule - it minimises the average loss over all possible states of nature θ {\displaystyle \theta } , over all possible (probability-weighted) data outcomes. One advantage of the Bayesian approach is to that one need only choose the optimal action under the actual observed data to obtain a uniformly optimal one, whereas choosing the actual frequentist optimal decision rule as a function of all possible observations, is a much more difficult problem. Of equal importance though, the Bayes Rule reflects consideration of loss outcomes under different states of nature, θ {\displaystyle \theta } . ==== Examples in statistics ==== For a scalar parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } , a decision function whose output θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is an estimate of θ {\displaystyle \theta } , and a quadratic loss function (squared error loss) L ( θ , θ ^ ) = ( θ − θ ^ ) 2 , {\displaystyle L(\theta ,{\hat {\theta }})=(\theta -{\hat {\theta }})^{2},} the risk function becomes the mean squared error of the estimate, R ( θ , θ ^ ) = E θ [ ( θ − θ ^ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle R(\theta ,{\hat {\thet
Sufficient dimension reduction
In statistics, sufficient dimension reduction (SDR) is a paradigm for analyzing data that combines the ideas of dimension reduction with the concept of sufficiency. Dimension reduction has long been a primary goal of regression analysis. Given a response variable y and a p-dimensional predictor vector x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , regression analysis aims to study the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the conditional distribution of y {\displaystyle y} given x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction is a function R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} that maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R k {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , k < p, thereby reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . For example, R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be one or more linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} is said to be sufficient if the distribution of y ∣ R ( x ) {\displaystyle y\mid R({\textbf {x}})} is the same as that of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, no information about the regression is lost in reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} if the reduction is sufficient. == Graphical motivation == In a regression setting, it is often useful to summarize the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} graphically. For instance, one may consider a scatterplot of y {\displaystyle y} versus one or more of the predictors or a linear combination of the predictors. A scatterplot that contains all available regression information is called a sufficient summary plot. When x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} is high-dimensional, particularly when p ≥ 3 {\displaystyle p\geq 3} , it becomes increasingly challenging to construct and visually interpret sufficiency summary plots without reducing the data. Even three-dimensional scatter plots must be viewed via a computer program, and the third dimension can only be visualized by rotating the coordinate axes. However, if there exists a sufficient dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} with small enough dimension, a sufficient summary plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be constructed and visually interpreted with relative ease. Hence sufficient dimension reduction allows for graphical intuition about the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , which might not have otherwise been available for high-dimensional data. Most graphical methodology focuses primarily on dimension reduction involving linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . The rest of this article deals only with such reductions. == Dimension reduction subspace == Suppose R ( x ) = A T x {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})=A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient dimension reduction, where A {\displaystyle A} is a p × k {\displaystyle p\times k} matrix with rank k ≤ p {\displaystyle k\leq p} . Then the regression information for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} can be inferred by studying the distribution of y ∣ A T x {\displaystyle y\mid A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} , and the plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus A T x {\displaystyle A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient summary plot. Without loss of generality, only the space spanned by the columns of A {\displaystyle A} need be considered. Let η {\displaystyle \eta } be a basis for the column space of A {\displaystyle A} , and let the space spanned by η {\displaystyle \eta } be denoted by S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} . It follows from the definition of a sufficient dimension reduction that F y ∣ x = F y ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle F_{y\mid x}=F_{y\mid \eta ^{T}x},} where F {\displaystyle F} denotes the appropriate distribution function. Another way to express this property is y ⊥ ⊥ x ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle y\perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}\mid \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}},} or y {\displaystyle y} is conditionally independent of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , given η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} . Then the subspace S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} is defined to be a dimension reduction subspace (DRS). === Structural dimensionality === For a regression y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the structural dimension, d {\displaystyle d} , is the smallest number of distinct linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} necessary to preserve the conditional distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, the smallest dimension reduction that is still sufficient maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} . The corresponding DRS will be d-dimensional. === Minimum dimension reduction subspace === A subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is said to be a minimum DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} if it is a DRS and its dimension is less than or equal to that of all other DRSs for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . A minimum DRS S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is not necessarily unique, but its dimension is equal to the structural dimension d {\displaystyle d} of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , by definition. If S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} has basis η {\displaystyle \eta } and is a minimum DRS, then a plot of y versus η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a minimal sufficient summary plot, and it is (d + 1)-dimensional. == Central subspace == If a subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , and if S ⊂ S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}\subset {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} for all other DRSs S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} , then it is a central dimension reduction subspace, or simply a central subspace, and it is denoted by S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . In other words, a central subspace for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} exists if and only if the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} of all dimension reduction subspaces is also a dimension reduction subspace, and that intersection is the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . The central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does not necessarily exist because the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} is not necessarily a DRS. However, if S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does exist, then it is also the unique minimum dimension reduction subspace. === Existence of the central subspace === While the existence of the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} is not guaranteed in every regression situation, there are some rather broad conditions under which its existence follows directly. For example, consider the following proposition from Cook (1998): Let S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} and S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} be dimension reduction subspaces for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . If x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} has density f ( a ) > 0 {\displaystyle f(a)>0} for all a ∈ Ω x {\displaystyle a\in \Omega _{x}} and f ( a ) = 0 {\displaystyle f(a)=0} everywhere else, where Ω x {\displaystyle \Omega _{x}} is convex, then the intersection S 1 ∩ S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}\cap {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} is also a dimension reduction subspace. It follows from this proposition that the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} exists for such x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . == Methods for dimension reduction == There are many existing methods for dimension reduction, both graphical and numeric. For example, sliced inverse regression (SIR) and sliced average variance estimation (SAVE) were introduced in the 1990s and continue to be widely used. Although SIR was originally designed to estimate an effective dimension reducing subspace, it is now understood that it estimates only the central subspace, which is generally different. More recent methods for dimension reduction include likelihood-based sufficient dimension reduction, estimating the central subspace based on the inverse third moment (or kth moment), estimating the central solution space, graphical regression, envelope model, and the principal support vector machine. For more details on these and other methods, consult the statistical literature. Principal components analysis (PCA) and similar methods for dimension reduction are not based on the sufficiency principle. === Example: linear regression === Consider the regression model y = α + β T x + ε , where ε ⊥ ⊥ x . {\displaystyle y=\alpha +\beta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}+\varepsilon ,{\text{ where }}\varepsilon \perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}.} Note that the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} is the same as the distribution of y ∣ β T x {\displ
CinePlayer
CinePlayer is a software based media player used to review Digital Cinema Packages (DCP) without the need for a digital cinema server by Doremi Labs. CinePlayer can play back any DCP, not just those created by Doremi Mastering products. In addition to playing DCPs, CinePlayer can also playback JPEG2000 image sequences and many popular multimedia file types. There are two versions of CinePlayer available, standard and Pro. The standard version supports playback of non-encrypted, 2D DCP's up to 2K resolution. The Pro version supports playback of encrypted, 2D or 3D DCP's with subtitles up to 4K resolution. == Supported formats == === Containers === AVI MOV MXF MPG TS WMV M2TS MTS MP4 MKV === Video codecs === JPEG2000 ProRes 422 DNxHD YUV Uncompressed 8-10 bits DIVX XVID MPEG4 AVC / H-264 VC-1 MPEG2 === Supported image sequences === BMP TIFF TGA DPX JPG J2C === Supported audio files === WAV MP3 WMA MP2
Junction tree algorithm
The junction tree algorithm (also known as 'Clique Tree') is a method used in machine learning to extract marginalization in general graphs. In essence, it entails performing belief propagation on a modified graph called a junction tree. The graph is called a tree because it branches into different sections of data; nodes of variables are the branches. The basic premise is to eliminate cycles by clustering them into single nodes. Multiple extensive classes of queries can be compiled at the same time into larger structures of data. There are different algorithms to meet specific needs and for what needs to be calculated. Inference algorithms gather new developments in the data and calculate it based on the new information provided. == Junction tree algorithm == === Hugin algorithm === If the graph is directed then moralize it to make it un-directed. Introduce the evidence. Triangulate the graph to make it chordal. Construct a junction tree from the triangulated graph (we will call the vertices of the junction tree "supernodes"). Propagate the probabilities along the junction tree (via belief propagation) Note that this last step is inefficient for graphs of large treewidth. Computing the messages to pass between supernodes involves doing exact marginalization over the variables in both supernodes. Performing this algorithm for a graph with treewidth k will thus have at least one computation which takes time exponential in k. It is a message passing algorithm. The Hugin algorithm takes fewer computations to find a solution compared to Shafer-Shenoy. === Shafer-Shenoy algorithm === Computed recursively Multiple recursions of the Shafer-Shenoy algorithm results in Hugin algorithm Found by the message passing equation Separator potentials are not stored The Shafer-Shenoy algorithm is the sum product of a junction tree. It is used because it runs programs and queries more efficiently than the Hugin algorithm. The algorithm makes calculations for conditionals for belief functions possible. Joint distributions are needed to make local computations happen. === Underlying theory === The first step concerns only Bayesian networks, and is a procedure to turn a directed graph into an undirected one. We do this because it allows for the universal applicability of the algorithm, regardless of direction. The second step is setting variables to their observed value. This is usually needed when we want to calculate conditional probabilities, so we fix the value of the random variables we condition on. Those variables are also said to be clamped to their particular value. The third step is to ensure that graphs are made chordal if they aren't already chordal. This is the first essential step of the algorithm. It makes use of the following theorem: Theorem: For an undirected graph, G, the following properties are equivalent: Graph G is triangulated. The clique graph of G has a junction tree. There is an elimination ordering for G that does not lead to any added edges. Thus, by triangulating a graph, we make sure that the corresponding junction tree exists. A usual way to do this, is to decide an elimination order for its nodes, and then run the Variable elimination algorithm. The variable elimination algorithm states that the algorithm must be run each time there is a different query. This will result to adding more edges to the initial graph, in such a way that the output will be a chordal graph. All chordal graphs have a junction tree. The next step is to construct the junction tree. To do so, we use the graph from the previous step, and form its corresponding clique graph. Now the next theorem gives us a way to find a junction tree: Theorem: Given a triangulated graph, weight the edges of the clique graph by their cardinality, |A∩B|, of the intersection of the adjacent cliques A and B. Then any maximum-weight spanning tree of the clique graph is a junction tree. So, to construct a junction tree we just have to extract a maximum weight spanning tree out of the clique graph. This can be efficiently done by, for example, modifying Kruskal's algorithm. The last step is to apply belief propagation to the obtained junction tree. Usage: A junction tree graph is used to visualize the probabilities of the problem. The tree can become a binary tree to form the actual building of the tree. A specific use could be found in auto encoders, which combine the graph and a passing network on a large scale automatically. === Inference Algorithms === Loopy belief propagation: A different method of interpreting complex graphs. The loopy belief propagation is used when an approximate solution is needed instead of the exact solution. It is an approximate inference. Cutset conditioning: Used with smaller sets of variables. Cutset conditioning allows for simpler graphs that are easier to read but are not exact.