Cartesian genetic programming is a form of genetic programming that uses a graph representation to encode computer programs. It grew from a method of evolving digital circuits developed by Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson in 1997. The term ‘Cartesian genetic programming’ first appeared in 1999 and was proposed as a general form of genetic programming in 2000. It is called ‘Cartesian’ because it represents a program using a two-dimensional grid of nodes. Miller's keynote explains how CGP works. He edited a book entitled Cartesian Genetic Programming, published in 2011 by Springer. The open source project dCGP implements a differentiable version of CGP developed at the European Space Agency by Dario Izzo, Francesco Biscani and Alessio Mereta able to approach symbolic regression tasks, to find solution to differential equations, find prime integrals of dynamical systems, represent variable topology artificial neural networks and more.
Graph cut optimization
Graph cut optimization is a combinatorial optimization method applicable to a family of functions of discrete variables, named after the concept of cut in the theory of flow networks. Thanks to the max-flow min-cut theorem, determining the minimum cut over a graph representing a flow network is equivalent to computing the maximum flow over the network. Given a pseudo-Boolean function f {\displaystyle f} , if it is possible to construct a flow network with positive weights such that each cut C {\displaystyle C} of the network can be mapped to an assignment of variables x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } to f {\displaystyle f} (and vice versa), and the cost of C {\displaystyle C} equals f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} (up to an additive constant) then it is possible to find the global optimum of f {\displaystyle f} in polynomial time by computing a minimum cut of the graph. The mapping between cuts and variable assignments is done by representing each variable with one node in the graph and, given a cut, each variable will have a value of 0 if the corresponding node belongs to the component connected to the source, or 1 if it belong to the component connected to the sink. Not all pseudo-Boolean functions can be represented by a flow network, and in the general case the global optimization problem is NP-hard. There exist sufficient conditions to characterise families of functions that can be optimised through graph cuts, such as submodular quadratic functions. Graph cut optimization can be extended to functions of discrete variables with a finite number of values, that can be approached with iterative algorithms with strong optimality properties, computing one graph cut at each iteration. Graph cut optimization is an important tool for inference over graphical models such as Markov random fields or conditional random fields, and it has applications in computer vision problems such as image segmentation, denoising, registration and stereo matching. == Representability == A pseudo-Boolean function f : { 0 , 1 } n → R {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } is said to be representable if there exists a graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} with non-negative weights and with source and sink nodes s {\displaystyle s} and t {\displaystyle t} respectively, and there exists a set of nodes V 0 = { v 1 , … , v n } ⊂ V − { s , t } {\displaystyle V_{0}=\{v_{1},\dots ,v_{n}\}\subset V-\{s,t\}} such that, for each tuple of values ( x 1 , … , x n ) ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle (x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})\in \{0,1\}^{n}} assigned to the variables, f ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})} equals (up to a constant) the value of the flow determined by a minimum cut C = ( S , T ) {\displaystyle C=(S,T)} of the graph G {\displaystyle G} such that v i ∈ S {\displaystyle v_{i}\in S} if x i = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}=0} and v i ∈ T {\displaystyle v_{i}\in T} if x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} . It is possible to classify pseudo-Boolean functions according to their order, determined by the maximum number of variables contributing to each single term. All first order functions, where each term depends upon at most one variable, are always representable. Quadratic functions f ( x ) = w 0 + ∑ i w i ( x i ) + ∑ i < j w i j ( x i , x j ) . {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )=w_{0}+\sum _{i}w_{i}(x_{i})+\sum _{i
Semidefinite embedding
Maximum Variance Unfolding (MVU), also known as Semidefinite Embedding (SDE), is an algorithm in computer science that uses semidefinite programming to perform non-linear dimensionality reduction of high-dimensional vectorial input data. It is motivated by the observation that kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) does not reduce the data dimensionality, as it leverages the Kernel trick to non-linearly map the original data into an inner-product space. == Algorithm == MVU creates a mapping from the high dimensional input vectors to some low dimensional Euclidean vector space in the following steps: A neighbourhood graph is created. Each input is connected with its k-nearest input vectors (according to Euclidean distance metric) and all k-nearest neighbors are connected with each other. If the data is sampled well enough, the resulting graph is a discrete approximation of the underlying manifold. The neighbourhood graph is "unfolded" with the help of semidefinite programming. Instead of learning the output vectors directly, the semidefinite programming aims to find an inner product matrix that maximizes the pairwise distances between any two inputs that are not connected in the neighbourhood graph while preserving the nearest neighbors distances. The low-dimensional embedding is finally obtained by application of multidimensional scaling on the learned inner product matrix. The steps of applying semidefinite programming followed by a linear dimensionality reduction step to recover a low-dimensional embedding into a Euclidean space were first proposed by Linial, London, and Rabinovich. == Optimization formulation == Let X {\displaystyle X\,\!} be the original input and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} be the embedding. If i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} are two neighbors, then the local isometry constraint that needs to be satisfied is: | X i − X j | 2 = | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle |X_{i}-X_{j}|^{2}=|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\,\!} Let G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} be the Gram matrices of X {\displaystyle X\,\!} and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} (i.e.: G i j = X i ⋅ X j , K i j = Y i ⋅ Y j {\displaystyle G_{ij}=X_{i}\cdot X_{j},K_{ij}=Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\,\!} ). We can express the above constraint for every neighbor points i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} in term of G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} : G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i {\displaystyle G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji}\,\!} In addition, we also want to constrain the embedding Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} to center at the origin: 0 = | ∑ i Y i | 2 ⇔ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⋅ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⇔ ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j ⇔ ∑ i , j K i j {\displaystyle 0=|\sum _{i}Y_{i}|^{2}\Leftrightarrow (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\cdot (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}K_{ij}} As described above, except the distances of neighbor points are preserved, the algorithm aims to maximize the pairwise distance of every pair of points. The objective function to be maximized is: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}} Intuitively, maximizing the function above is equivalent to pulling the points as far away from each other as possible and therefore "unfold" the manifold. The local isometry constraint Let τ = m a x { η i j | Y i − Y j | 2 } {\displaystyle \tau =max\{\eta _{ij}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\}\,\!} where η i j := { 1 if i is a neighbour of j 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle \eta _{ij}:={\begin{cases}1&{\mbox{if}}\ i{\mbox{ is a neighbour of }}j\\0&{\mbox{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} prevents the objective function from diverging (going to infinity). Since the graph has N points, the distance between any two points | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ N τ {\displaystyle |Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq N\tau \,\!} . We can then bound the objective function as follows: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( N τ ) 2 = N 3 τ 2 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq {\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(N\tau )^{2}={\dfrac {N^{3}\tau ^{2}}{2}}\,\!} The objective function can be rewritten purely in the form of the Gram matrix: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 = 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( Y i 2 + Y j 2 − Y i ⋅ Y j − Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j − ∑ i , j Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − 0 − 0 ) = 1 N ( ∑ i Y i 2 ) = 1 N ( T r ( K ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}T(Y)&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(Y_{i}^{2}+Y_{j}^{2}-Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-0-0)\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{N}}(\sum _{i}Y_{i}^{2})={\dfrac {1}{N}}(Tr(K))\\\end{aligned}}\,\!} Finally, the optimization can be formulated as: Maximize T r ( K ) subject to K ⪰ 0 , ∑ i j K i j = 0 and G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i , ∀ i , j where η i j = 1 , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\text{Maximize}}&&Tr(\mathbf {K} )\\&{\text{subject to}}&&\mathbf {K} \succeq 0,\sum _{ij}\mathbf {K} _{ij}=0\\&{\text{and}}&&G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji},\forall i,j{\mbox{ where }}\eta _{ij}=1,\end{aligned}}} After the Gram matrix K {\displaystyle K\,\!} is learned by semidefinite programming, the output Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} can be obtained via Cholesky decomposition. In particular, the Gram matrix can be written as K i j = ∑ α = 1 N ( λ α V α i V α j ) {\displaystyle K_{ij}=\sum _{\alpha =1}^{N}(\lambda _{\alpha }V_{\alpha i}V_{\alpha j})\,\!} where V α i {\displaystyle V_{\alpha i}\,\!} is the i-th element of eigenvector V α {\displaystyle V_{\alpha }\,\!} of the eigenvalue λ α {\displaystyle \lambda _{\alpha }\,\!} . It follows that the α {\displaystyle \alpha \,\!} -th element of the output Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}\,\!} is λ α V α i {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\lambda _{\alpha }}}V_{\alpha i}\,\!} .
Cross-entropy
In information theory, the cross-entropy between two probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} , over the same underlying set of events, measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set when the coding scheme used for the set is optimized for an estimated probability distribution q {\displaystyle q} , rather than the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} . == Definition == The cross-entropy of the distribution q {\displaystyle q} relative to a distribution p {\displaystyle p} over a given set is defined as follows: H ( p , q ) = − E p [ log q ] , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=-\operatorname {E} _{p}[\log q],} where E p [ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{p}[\cdot ]} is the expected value operator with respect to the distribution p {\displaystyle p} . The definition may be formulated using the Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , divergence of p {\displaystyle p} from q {\displaystyle q} (also known as the relative entropy of p {\displaystyle p} with respect to q {\displaystyle q} ). H ( p , q ) = H ( p ) + D K L ( p ∥ q ) , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=H(p)+D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q),} where H ( p ) {\displaystyle H(p)} is the entropy of p {\displaystyle p} . For discrete probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with the same support X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , this means The situation for continuous distributions is analogous. We have to assume that p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are absolutely continuous with respect to some reference measure r {\displaystyle r} (usually r {\displaystyle r} is a Lebesgue measure on a Borel σ-algebra). Let P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} be probability density functions of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with respect to r {\displaystyle r} . Then − ∫ X P ( x ) log Q ( x ) d x = E p [ − log Q ] , {\displaystyle -\int _{\mathcal {X}}P(x)\,\log Q(x)\,\mathrm {d} x=\operatorname {E} _{p}[-\log Q],} and therefore NB: The notation H ( p , q ) {\displaystyle H(p,q)} is also used for a different concept, the joint entropy of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} . == Motivation == In information theory, the Kraft–McMillan theorem establishes that any directly decodable coding scheme for coding a message to identify one value x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of a set of possibilities { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} can be seen as representing an implicit probability distribution q ( x i ) = ( 1 2 ) ℓ i {\displaystyle q(x_{i})=\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)^{\ell _{i}}} over { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} , where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is the length of the code for x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} in bits. Therefore, cross-entropy can be interpreted as the expected message-length per datum when a wrong distribution q {\displaystyle q} is assumed while the data actually follows a distribution p {\displaystyle p} . That is why the expectation is taken over the true probability distribution p {\displaystyle p} and not q . {\displaystyle q.} Indeed the expected message-length under the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} is E p [ ℓ ] = − E p [ ln q ( x ) ln ( 2 ) ] = − E p [ log 2 q ( x ) ] = − ∑ x i p ( x i ) log 2 q ( x i ) = − ∑ x p ( x ) log 2 q ( x ) = H ( p , q ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {E} _{p}[\ell ]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[{\frac {\ln {q(x)}}{\ln(2)}}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[\log _{2}{q(x)}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x_{i}}p(x_{i})\,\log _{2}q(x_{i})\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x}p(x)\,\log _{2}q(x)=H(p,q).\end{aligned}}} == Estimation == There are many situations where cross-entropy needs to be measured but the distribution of p {\displaystyle p} is unknown. An example is language modeling, where a model is created based on a training set T {\displaystyle T} , and then its cross-entropy is measured on a test set to assess how accurate the model is in predicting the test data. In this example, p {\displaystyle p} is the true distribution of words in any corpus, and q {\displaystyle q} is the distribution of words as predicted by the model. Since the true distribution is unknown, cross-entropy cannot be directly calculated. In these cases, an estimate of cross-entropy is calculated using the following formula: H ( T , q ) = − ∑ i = 1 N 1 N log 2 q ( x i ) {\displaystyle H(T,q)=-\sum _{i=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}\log _{2}q(x_{i})} where N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the test set, and q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(x)} is the probability of event x {\displaystyle x} estimated from the training set. In other words, q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} is the probability estimate of the model that the i-th word of the text is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . The sum is averaged over the N {\displaystyle N} words of the test. This is a Monte Carlo estimate of the true cross-entropy, where the test set is treated as samples from p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} . == Relation to maximum likelihood == The cross entropy arises in classification problems when introducing a logarithm in the guise of the log-likelihood function. This section concerns the estimation of the probabilities of different discrete outcomes. To this end, denote a parametrized family of distributions by q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } subject to the optimization effort. Consider a given finite sequence of N {\displaystyle N} values x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from a training set, obtained from conditionally independent sampling. The likelihood assigned to any considered parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the model is then given by the product over all probabilities q θ ( X = x i ) {\displaystyle q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})} . Repeated occurrences are possible, leading to equal factors in the product. If the count of occurrences of the value equal to x {\displaystyle x} is denoted by # x {\displaystyle \#x} , then the frequency of that value equals # x / N {\displaystyle \#x/N} . If p ( X = x ) {\displaystyle p(X=x)} is the underlying probability distribution, for large N {\displaystyle N} we expect p ( X = x ) ≈ # x / N {\displaystyle p(X=x)\approx \#x/N} , by the law of large numbers. Writing our likelihood function as the product of observations from the distribution q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} : L ( θ ; x ) = ∏ i q θ ( X = x i ) = ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) # x ≈ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) = exp log [ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) ] = exp ( ∑ x N ⋅ p ( X = x ) log q θ ( X = x ) ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })&=\prod _{i}q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})=\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{\#x}\\&\approx \prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}=\exp \log \left[\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}\right]\\&=\exp \left(\sum _{x}N\cdot p(X=x)\log q_{\theta }(X=x)^{}\right),\end{aligned}}} where we have used the calculation rules for the logarithm in the final line. Notice how the exponent contains a − H ( p , q θ ) {\displaystyle -H(p,q_{\theta })} term. Taking the logarithm of both sides gives: log L ( θ ; x ) = − N ⋅ H ( p , q θ ) . {\displaystyle \log {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })=-N\cdot H(p,q_{\theta }).} Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by this final step. Similarly, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by the factor of N {\displaystyle N} . So we observe that the likelihood maximization amounts to minimization of the cross-entropy. == Cross-entropy minimization == Cross-entropy minimization is frequently used in optimization and rare-event probability estimation. When comparing a distribution q {\displaystyle q} against a fixed reference distribution p {\displaystyle p} , cross-entropy and KL divergence are identical up to an additive constant (since p {\displaystyle p} is fixed): According to the Gibbs' inequality, both take on their minimal values when p = q {\displaystyle p=q} , which is 0 {\displaystyle 0} for KL divergence, and H ( p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (p)} for cross-entropy. In the engineering literature, the principle of minimizing KL divergence (Kullback's "Principle of Minimum Discrimination Information") is often called the Principle of Minimum Cross-Entropy (MCE), or Minxent. However, as discussed in the article Kullback–Leibler divergence, sometimes the distribution q {\displaystyle q} is the fixed prior reference distribution, and the distribution p {\displaystyle p} is optimized to be as close to q {\displaystyle q} as possible, subject to some constraint. In this case the two minimizations are not equivalent. This has led to some ambiguity in the literature, with some authors attempting to resolve the inconsistency by restating cross-entropy to be D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , rather than H (
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.
CPT Corporation
CPT Corporation was founded in 1971 by Dean Scheff in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with co-founders James Wienhold and Richard Eichhorn. CPT first designed, manufactured, and marketed the CPT 4200, a dual-cassette-tape machine that controlled a modified IBM Selectric typewriter to support text editing and word processing. The CPT 4200 was followed in 1976 by the CPT VM (Visual Memory), a partial-page display-screen dual-cassette-tape unit, and shortly thereafter by the CPT 8000, a full-page display dual-diskette desktop microcomputer that drove stand-alone daisy wheel printers. Subsequent products included (1) variants on the 8000 series; (2) the CPT 6000 series, which had a lower capacity, smaller screen, and was less expensive; (3) the CPT 9000 series, which had a larger capacity and could run IBM personal computer software; (4) the CPT Phoenix series, which had a graphical capabilities; (5) CPT PT, a software-only reduced version that ran on IBM personal computers and clones; and (6) other related products. The CPT logo—originally three letters chosen to sound well together—began to be taken as an acronym for "cassette powered typewriting," and subsequently for "computer processed text," and numerous other variants. Major competition was IBM, Wang, Lanier, Xerox, and other word processing vendors. CPT Corporation was fifth in size among Minnesota-based top high-tech companies, after 3M, Honeywell, Control Data, and Medtronic. Corporate revenues grew to approximately a quarter-billion dollars per year in the mid-1980s, then declined with the proliferation of personal computers. CPT ultimately ceased major manufacturing late in the 20th century. == Selected products == === Cassette based === The CPT 4200 was a dual-cassette-tape unit with a small built-in keyboard that controlled a modified IBM Selectric typewriter. Keystrokes entered on the typewriter appeared on the paper as they were recorded on the output cassette, which formed a magnetic replica of the characters printed on the page. That output cassette could later be used as an input cassette, where it would be played back to the typewriter along with new keystrokes to accomplish text editing. The keyboard of the CPT 4200 had action keys for "skip", "read" and "stop", mode keys for "word", "line", "paragraph," and "page." Pressing "read" transferred a word, line, paragraph, or page (depending on which mode key had been selected) from the input tape to both the typewriter and the output tape. Line boundaries (aka printer margins) recorded on the input tape were ignored or retained depending on whether or not the "adjust" key had been selected. Alternatively, pressing "skip" moved past the corresponding amount of text on the input tape without sending it to the typewriter or to the output tape. The Selectric's keyboard was active for any new typing, which would appear on the paper and transferred to the output tape. Thus a document was edited by reading back those parts of the text to be retained and skipping those parts to be discarded, with new typing added from the Selectric's keyboard. Price: approx. $5000, 1980-era values. The CPT Communicator was an add-on to the CPT 4200 that allowed data to be transferred from one text-editing machine to another, or between a text-editing machine and a remote computer, via phone lines. Price: not available. === Microprocessor based === ==== CPT 8000 series ==== The CPT 8000 was the company's first microcomputer product, exhibited in spring of 1976. It was a self-contained desktop machine with two 8-inch floppy diskette drives, a movable keyboard, and a full-page vertically oriented CRT display simulating paper with black characters on a white background, for a wysiwyg view of text on paper. It was promoted as familiar and easy to use for those experienced with typewriters. A keyboard with a large set of extra keys made operating the 8000 quite easy even for people without any computer skills or background. IN, OUT, PRINT, OOPS OOPS was changed thinking it was insulting to the buyer to assume they would ever make an error. The CPT 8000 was designed to show a full page of text with a static line showing the margin and tab stops. An additional line would display status or error messages with a times square like display. The times square error and status messages were very well done, "The printer needs a new ribbon" rather than "ERROR 034892". The text page could both smooth pan and scroll by the hardware in the display board and nothing quite like it existed for a very long time. The 8000 ran its own multitasking hardware interrupt-driven operating system but it also ran CP/M quite well. So unlike other companies that sold Wordprocessor only systems, CPT had a system that could run any of the many popular CP/M applications. Using the CP/M OS users could develop Fortran, CBasic, Cobol and other language's programs. The 8000 used Intel's 8080 microprocessor. The display board was bleeding-edge, high-speed logic. The parts available at this time were pushed to their limits to provide the speed needed to display this much text. There were times that batches of parts from one manufacturer simply could not be clocked as fast as the 8000 display required. Memory was initially 64K, but larger boards of 128K were most common then later 256K were offered. The 8080 accessed this additional RAM by running a custom page flipping circuit. The 8000 was originally priced at $8000 and its daisy wheel printer an additional $8000. The model number having been confused with the price at its first appearance at the Hanover fair. An RS-232 serial communication option was available for the 8000 series that allowed the electronic transfer of documents. One very popular use of this was to access the Westlaw system. A tempest approved version of the 8000 was developed that was RF tight with nothing being emitted that could be monitored or spied on. === Storage Systems === ==== CPT WordPak ==== The CPT WordPak series was CPT's first external document storage system that enabled multiple 8000 series workstations to store documents in an electronic filing cabinet. Prior to WordPak, all documents were stored on removable 8-inch floppy diskettes. Sharing documents involved handing off the original disk, or copying the document to a second disk and 'sneaker-net-ing' (walking it over) to the second 8000. But this resulted in two copies of the document, one at each workstation. A circuit board with a proprietary cable connector was installed in the 8000/6000 family of "workstations" and connected to the WordPak by a multi-conductor cable. WordPak 1 consisted of a single Shugart Associates SA4000 14"-diameter hard disk with a capacity of 30 megabytes. WordPak 2 added a 2nd drive for a total of 60 megabytes. ==== CPT SRS 45 ==== The CPT SRS 45 was what would now be called a server (quite likely the first of its kind) but in practice was much more. It was maybe the worlds easiest networking shared resource system. It combined a ZIP drive for backup and hard disk(s) that would be shared simultaneously by up to eight CPT machines that had the PC AT bus. The primary person responsible for its development was Bill Davidson whose wife Cheryl was responsible for bringing up CP/M, MP/M and other Digital Research products running on the Phoenix. The brilliance of the system were the networking cards that plugged into the individual machines. These used the 55AA installable driver of the IBM BIOS to simply add the zip and hard disk drives to each computers drives list. So a system that started with floppy drives A and B and a C hard disk on the machine would have the SRS 45 drives added as drives D (E, F depending on the number of hard disk) and Z for the zip drive. Sharing (avoiding writing to the same file at the same time) was handled by simply assigning parts of the drives for individuals and other directories for shared use. No "driver" software was needed. You simply plugged in the networking card and your machine had additional drives that were internal to the SRS45. This approach was far ahead of its time and sadly never recognized for its brilliance. The SRS45 as were all CPT machines not just dedicated Word Processors. === Personal-computer based === ==== CPT PT software ==== CPT PT was a reduced a version of the software that ran under MS-DOS as an application on IBM PC compatible computers. The corporation intended it as a bridge to allow data to flow in and out of personal computer packages, as well as providing a personal-computer word processing application for those familiar with standalone CPT equipment or who preferred the CPT style of dual-window text editing. Price: approx. $200, 1980-era values. ==== CPT Genius Display ==== The Genius display was a stand-alone, vertically-oriented (portrait) configuration monochrome grey-scale CRT monitor unit and an IBM PC form factor display card to allow high-resolution, full-page text & graphics on IBM PC compatible computers.
CN2 algorithm
The CN2 induction algorithm is a learning algorithm for rule induction. It is designed to work even when the training data is imperfect. It is based on ideas from the AQ algorithm and the ID3 algorithm. As a consequence it creates a rule set like that created by AQ but is able to handle noisy data like ID3. == Description of algorithm == The algorithm must be given a set of examples, TrainingSet, which have already been classified in order to generate a list of classification rules. A set of conditions, SimpleConditionSet, which can be applied, alone or in combination, to any set of examples is predefined to be used for the classification. routine CN2(TrainingSet) let the ClassificationRuleList be empty repeat let the BestConditionExpression be Find_BestConditionExpression(TrainingSet) if the BestConditionExpression is not nil then let the TrainingSubset be the examples covered by the BestConditionExpression remove from the TrainingSet the examples in the TrainingSubset let the MostCommonClass be the most common class of examples in the TrainingSubset append to the ClassificationRuleList the rule 'if ' the BestConditionExpression ' then the class is ' the MostCommonClass until the TrainingSet is empty or the BestConditionExpression is nil return the ClassificationRuleList routine Find_BestConditionExpression(TrainingSet) let the ConditionalExpressionSet be empty let the BestConditionExpression be nil repeat let the TrialConditionalExpressionSet be the set of conditional expressions, {x and y where x belongs to the ConditionalExpressionSet and y belongs to the SimpleConditionSet}. remove all formulae in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet that are either in the ConditionalExpressionSet (i.e., the unspecialized ones) or null (e.g., big = y and big = n) for every expression, F, in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet if F is statistically significant and F is better than the BestConditionExpression by user-defined criteria when tested on the TrainingSet then replace the current value of the BestConditionExpression by F while the number of expressions in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet > user-defined maximum remove the worst expression from the TrialConditionalExpressionSet let the ConditionalExpressionSet be the TrialConditionalExpressionSet until the ConditionalExpressionSet is empty return the BestConditionExpression