The Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS; Japanese: 第五世代コンピュータ, romanized: daigosedai konpyūta) was a 10-year initiative launched in 1982 by Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) to develop computers based on massively parallel computing and logic programming. The project aimed to create an "epoch-making computer" with supercomputer-like performance and to establish a platform for future advancements in artificial intelligence. Although FGCS was noted as ahead of its time, and its ambitious goals contributed significantly to the development of concurrent logic programming, it ultimately ended in commercial failure. The term "fifth generation" was chosen to emphasize the system's advanced nature. In the history of computing hardware, there had been four prior "generations" of computers: the first generation utilized vacuum tubes; the second, transistors and diodes; the third, integrated circuits; and the fourth, microprocessors. While earlier generations focused on increasing the number of logic elements within a single CPU, it was widely believed at the time that the fifth generation would achieve enhanced performance through the use of massive numbers of CPUs. == Background == In the late 1960s until the early 1970s, there was much talk about "generations" of computer hardware, then usually organized into three generations First generation: Thermionic vacuum tubes. Mid-1940s. IBM pioneered the arrangement of vacuum tubes in pluggable modules. The IBM 650 was a first-generation computer. Second generation: Transistors. 1956. The era of miniaturization begins. Transistors are much smaller than vacuum tubes, draw less power, and generate less heat. Discrete transistors are soldered to circuit boards, with interconnections accomplished by stencil-screened conductive patterns on the reverse side. The IBM 7090 was a second-generation computer. Third generation: Integrated circuits (silicon chips containing multiple transistors). 1964. A pioneering example is the ACPX module used in the IBM 360/91, which, by stacking layers of silicon over a ceramic substrate, accommodated over 20 transistors per chip; the chips could be packed together onto a circuit board to achieve unprecedented logic densities. The IBM 360/91 was a hybrid second and third-generation computer. Omitted from this taxonomy is the "zeroth-generation" computer based on metal gears (such as the IBM 407) or mechanical relays (such as the Mark I), and the post-third-generation computers based on Very Large Scale Integrated (VLSI) circuits. There was also a parallel set of generations for software: First generation: Machine language. Second generation: Low-level programming languages such as Assembly language. Third generation: Structured high-level programming languages such as C, COBOL and FORTRAN. Fourth generation: "Non-procedural" high-level programming languages (such as object-oriented languages). Throughout these multiple generations up to the 1970s, Japan built computers following U.S. and British leads. In the mid-1970s, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry stopped following western leads and started looking into the future of computing on a small scale. They asked the Japan Information Processing Development Center (JIPDEC) to indicate a number of future directions, and in 1979 offered a three-year contract to carry out more in-depth studies along with industry and academia. It was during this period that the term "fifth-generation computer" started to be used. Prior to the 1970s, MITI guidance had successes such as an improved steel industry, the creation of the oil supertanker, the automotive industry, consumer electronics, and computer memory. MITI decided that the future was going to be information technology. However, the Japanese language, particularly in its written form, presented and still presents obstacles for computers. As a result of these hurdles, MITI held a conference to seek assistance from experts. The primary fields for investigation from this initial project were: Inference computer technologies for knowledge processing Computer technologies to process large-scale data bases and knowledge bases High-performance workstations Distributed functional computer technologies Super-computers for scientific calculation == Project launch == The aim was to build parallel computers for artificial intelligence applications using concurrent logic programming. The project imagined an "epoch-making" computer with supercomputer-like performance running on top of large databases (as opposed to a traditional filesystem) using a logic programming language to define and access the data using massively parallel computing/processing. They envisioned building a prototype machine with performance between 100M and 1G LIPS, where a LIPS is a Logical Inference Per Second. At the time typical workstation machines were capable of about 100k LIPS. They proposed to build this machine over a ten-year period, 3 years for initial R&D, 4 years for building various subsystems, and a final 3 years to complete a working prototype system. In 1982 the government decided to go ahead with the project, and established the Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT) through joint investment with various Japanese computer companies. After the project ended, MITI would consider an investment in a new "sixth generation" project. Ehud Shapiro captured the rationale and motivations driving this project: "As part of Japan's effort to become a leader in the computer industry, the Institute for New Generation Computer Technology has launched a revolutionary ten-year plan for the development of large computer systems which will be applicable to knowledge information processing systems. These Fifth Generation computers will be built around the concepts of logic programming. In order to refute the accusation that Japan exploits knowledge from abroad without contributing any of its own, this project will stimulate original research and will make its results available to the international research community." === Logic programming === The target defined by the FGCS project was to develop "Knowledge Information Processing systems" (roughly meaning, applied Artificial Intelligence). The chosen tool to implement this goal was logic programming. Logic programming approach as was characterized by Maarten Van Emden – one of its founders – as: The use of logic to express information in a computer. The use of logic to present problems to a computer. The use of logical inference to solve these problems. More technically, it can be summed up in two equations: Program = Set of axioms. Computation = Proof of a statement from axioms. The Axioms typically used are universal axioms of a restricted form, called Horn-clauses or definite-clauses. The statement proved in a computation is an existential statement. The proof is constructive, and provides values for the existentially quantified variables: these values constitute the output of the computation. Logic programming was thought of as something that unified various gradients of computer science (software engineering, databases, computer architecture and artificial intelligence). It seemed that logic programming was a key missing connection between knowledge engineering and parallel computer architectures. == Results == After having influenced the consumer electronics field during the 1970s and the automotive world during the 1980s, the Japanese had developed a strong reputation. The launch of the FGCS project spread the belief that parallel computing was the future of all performance gains, producing a wave of apprehension in the computer field. Soon parallel projects were set up in the US as the Strategic Computing Initiative and the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC), in the UK as Alvey, and in Europe as the European Strategic Program on Research in Information Technology (ESPRIT), as well as the European Computer‐Industry Research Centre (ECRC) in Munich, a collaboration between ICL in Britain, Bull in France, and Siemens in Germany. The project ran from 1982 to 1994, spending a little less than ¥57 billion (about US$320 million) total. After the FGCS Project, MITI stopped funding large-scale computer research projects, and the research momentum developed by the FGCS Project dissipated. However MITI/ICOT embarked on a neural-net project which some called the Sixth Generation Project in the 1990s, with a similar level of funding. Per-year spending was less than 1% of the entire R&D expenditure of the electronics and communications equipment industry. For example, the project's highest expenditure year was 7.2 million yen in 1991, but IBM alone spent 1.5 billion dollars (370 billion yen) in 1982, while the industry spent 2150 billion yen in 1990. === Concurrent logic programming === In 1982, during a visit to the ICOT, Ehud Shapiro invented Concurrent Prolog, a novel programming language t
DexNet
Dex-net is a robotic. It uses a Grasp Quality Convolutional Neural Network to learn how to grasp unusually shaped objects. == History == Dex-net was developed by University of California, Berkeley professor Ken Goldberg and graduate student Jeff Mahler. == Design == Dex-net includes a high-resolution 3-D sensor and two arms, each controlled by a different neural network. One arm is equipped with a conventional robot gripper and another with a suction system. The robot’s software scans an object and then asks both neural networks to decide, on the fly, whether to grab or suck a particular object. It runs on an off-the-shelf industrial machine made by Swiss robotics company ABB. The software learns by attempting to pick up objects in a virtual environment. Dex-Net can generalize from an object it has seen before to a new one. The robot can "nudge" such virtual objects to examine if it is unsure how to grasp them. The trial data set was 6.7 million point clouds, grasps and analytic grasp metrics generated from thousands of 3D models. Grasps are defined as a gripper's planar position, angle and depth relative to an RGB-D sensor. == Mean picks per hour == A metric called mean picks per hour (MPPH) is calculated by multiplying the average time per pick and the average probability of success for a specific set of objects. The new metric allows labs working on picking robots to compare their results. Humans are capable of between 400 and 600 MPPH. In a contest organized by Amazon recently, the best robots were capable of between 70 and 95. Dex-net has achieved 200 to 300.
Generalized blockmodeling of binary networks
Generalized blockmodeling of binary networks (also relational blockmodeling) is an approach of generalized blockmodeling, analysing the binary network(s). As most network analyses deal with binary networks, this approach is also considered as the fundamental approach of blockmodeling. This is especially noted, as the set of ideal blocks, when used for interpretation of blockmodels, have binary link patterns, which precludes them to be compared with valued empirical blocks. When analysing the binary networks, the criterion function is measuring block inconsistencies, while also reporting the possible errors. The ideal block in binary blockmodeling has only three types of conditions: "a certain cell must be (at least) 1, a certain cell must be 0 and the f {\displaystyle f} over each row (or column) must be at least 1". It is also used as a basis for developing the generalized blockmodeling of valued networks.
Bayesian hierarchical modeling
Bayesian hierarchical modelling is a statistical model written in multiple levels (hierarchical form) that estimates the posterior distribution of model parameters using the Bayesian method. The sub-models combine to form the hierarchical model, and Bayes' theorem is used to integrate them with the observed data and account for all the uncertainty that is present. This integration enables calculation of updated posterior over the (hyper)parameters, effectively updating prior beliefs in light of the observed data. Frequentist statistics may yield conclusions seemingly incompatible with those offered by Bayesian statistics due to the Bayesian treatment of the parameters as random variables and its use of subjective information in establishing assumptions on these parameters. As the approaches answer different questions the formal results are not technically contradictory but the two approaches disagree over which answer is relevant to particular applications. Bayesians argue that relevant information regarding decision-making and updating beliefs cannot be ignored and that hierarchical modeling has the potential to overrule classical methods in applications where respondents give multiple observational data. Moreover, the model has proven to be robust, with the posterior distribution less sensitive to the more flexible hierarchical priors. Hierarchical modeling, as its name implies, retains nested data structure, and is used when information is available at several different levels of observational units. For example, in epidemiological modeling to describe infection trajectories for multiple countries, observational units are countries, and each country has its own time-based profile of daily infected cases. In decline curve analysis to describe oil or gas production decline curve for multiple wells, observational units are oil or gas wells in a reservoir region, and each well has each own time-based profile of oil or gas production rates (usually, barrels per month). Hierarchical modeling is used to devise computation based strategies for multiparameter problems. == Philosophy == Statistical methods and models commonly involve multiple parameters that can be regarded as related or connected in such a way that the problem implies a dependence of the joint probability model for these parameters. Individual degrees of belief, expressed in the form of probabilities, come with uncertainty. Amidst this is the change of the degrees of belief over time. As was stated by Professor José M. Bernardo and Professor Adrian F. Smith, "The actuality of the learning process consists in the evolution of individual and subjective beliefs about the reality." These subjective probabilities are more directly involved in the mind rather than the physical probabilities. Hence, it is with this need of updating beliefs that Bayesians have formulated an alternative statistical model which takes into account the prior occurrence of a particular event. == Bayes' theorem == The assumed occurrence of a real-world event will typically modify preferences between certain options. This is done by modifying the degrees of belief attached, by an individual, to the events defining the options. Suppose in a study of the effectiveness of cardiac treatments, with the patients in hospital j having survival probability θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} , the survival probability will be updated with the occurrence of y, the event in which a controversial serum is created which, as believed by some, increases survival in cardiac patients. In order to make updated probability statements about θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} , given the occurrence of event y, we must begin with a model providing a joint probability distribution for θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} and y. This can be written as a product of the two distributions that are often referred to as the prior distribution P ( θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta )} and the sampling distribution P ( y ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle P(y\mid \theta )} respectively: P ( θ , y ) = P ( θ ) P ( y ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta ,y)=P(\theta )P(y\mid \theta )} Using the basic property of conditional probability, the posterior distribution will yield: P ( θ ∣ y ) = P ( θ , y ) P ( y ) = P ( y ∣ θ ) P ( θ ) P ( y ) {\displaystyle P(\theta \mid y)={\frac {P(\theta ,y)}{P(y)}}={\frac {P(y\mid \theta )P(\theta )}{P(y)}}} This equation, showing the relationship between the conditional probability and the individual events, is known as Bayes' theorem. This simple expression encapsulates the technical core of Bayesian inference which aims to deconstruct the probability, P ( θ ∣ y ) {\displaystyle P(\theta \mid y)} , relative to solvable subsets of its supportive evidence. == Exchangeability == The usual starting point of a statistical analysis is the assumption that the n values y 1 , y 2 , … , y n {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n}} are exchangeable. If no information – other than data y – is available to distinguish any of the θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} 's from any others, and no ordering or grouping of the parameters can be made, one must assume symmetry of prior distribution parameters. This symmetry is represented probabilistically by exchangeability. Generally, it is useful and appropriate to model data from an exchangeable distribution as independently and identically distributed, given some unknown parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } , with distribution P ( θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta )} . === Finite exchangeability === For a fixed number n, the set y 1 , y 2 , … , y n {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n}} is exchangeable if the joint probability P ( y 1 , y 2 , … , y n ) {\displaystyle P(y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n})} is invariant under permutations of the indices. That is, for every permutation π {\displaystyle \pi } or ( π 1 , π 2 , … , π n ) {\displaystyle (\pi _{1},\pi _{2},\ldots ,\pi _{n})} of (1, 2, …, n), P ( y 1 , y 2 , … , y n ) = P ( y π 1 , y π 2 , … , y π n ) . {\displaystyle P(y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n})=P(y_{\pi _{1}},y_{\pi _{2}},\ldots ,y_{\pi _{n}}).} The following is an exchangeable, but not independent and identical (iid), example: Consider an urn with a red ball and a blue ball inside, with probability 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} of drawing either. Balls are drawn without replacement, i.e. after one ball is drawn from the n {\displaystyle n} balls, there will be n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} remaining balls left for the next draw. Let Y i = { 1 , if the i th ball is red , 0 , otherwise . {\displaystyle {\text{Let }}Y_{i}={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if the }}i{\text{th ball is red}},\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} The probability of selecting a red ball in the first draw and a blue ball in the second draw is equal to the probability of selecting a blue ball on the first draw and a red on the second, both of which are 1/2: P ( y 1 = 1 , y 2 = 0 ) = P ( y 1 = 0 , y 2 = 1 ) = 1 2 {\displaystyle P(y_{1}=1,y_{2}=0)=P(y_{1}=0,y_{2}=1)={\frac {1}{2}}} . This makes y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} and y 2 {\displaystyle y_{2}} exchangeable. But the probability of selecting a red ball on the second draw given that the red ball has already been selected in the first is 0. This is not equal to the probability that the red ball is selected in the second draw, which is 1/2: P ( y 2 = 1 ∣ y 1 = 1 ) = 0 ≠ P ( y 2 = 1 ) = 1 2 {\displaystyle P(y_{2}=1\mid y_{1}=1)=0\neq P(y_{2}=1)={\frac {1}{2}}} . Thus, y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} and y 2 {\displaystyle y_{2}} are not independent. If x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} are independent and identically distributed, then they are exchangeable, but the converse is not necessarily true. === Infinite exchangeability === Infinite exchangeability is the property that every finite subset of an infinite sequence y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} , y 2 , … {\displaystyle y_{2},\ldots } is exchangeable. For any n, the sequence y 1 , y 2 , … , y n {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n}} is exchangeable. == Hierarchical models == === Components === Bayesian hierarchical modeling makes use of two important concepts in deriving the posterior distribution, namely: Hyperparameters: parameters of the prior distribution Hyperpriors: distributions of Hyperparameters Suppose a random variable Y follows a normal distribution with parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } as the mean and 1 as the variance, that is Y ∣ θ ∼ N ( θ , 1 ) {\displaystyle Y\mid \theta \sim N(\theta ,1)} . The tilde relation ∼ {\displaystyle \sim } can be read as "has the distribution of" or "is distributed as". Suppose also that the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } has a distribution given by a normal distribution with mean μ {\displaystyle \mu } and variance 1, i.e. θ ∣ μ ∼ N ( μ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \theta \mid \mu \sim N(\mu ,1)} . Furthermore, μ {\displaystyle \mu } follows another distribution given, for example, by the standard normal distribution, N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle {\text{N}}(0,1)} . The parameter μ {\dis
Frequent pattern discovery
Frequent pattern discovery (or FP discovery, FP mining, or Frequent itemset mining) is part of knowledge discovery in databases, Massive Online Analysis, and data mining; it describes the task of finding the most frequent and relevant patterns in large datasets. The concept was first introduced for mining transaction databases. Frequent patterns are defined as subsets (itemsets, subsequences, or substructures) that appear in a data set with frequency no less than a user-specified or auto-determined threshold. == Techniques == Techniques for FP mining include: market basket analysis cross-marketing catalog design clustering classification recommendation systems For the most part, FP discovery can be done using association rule learning with particular algorithms Eclat, FP-growth and the Apriori algorithm. Other strategies include: Frequent subtree mining Structure mining Sequential pattern mining and respective specific techniques. Implementations exist for various machine learning systems or modules like MLlib for Apache Spark.
Robot learning
Robot learning is a research field at the intersection of machine learning and robotics. It studies techniques allowing a robot to acquire novel skills or adapt to its environment through learning algorithms. The embodiment of the robot, situated in a physical embedding, provides at the same time specific difficulties (e.g. high-dimensionality, real time constraints for collecting data and learning) and opportunities for guiding the learning process (e.g. sensorimotor synergies, motor primitives). Example of skills that are targeted by learning algorithms include sensorimotor skills such as locomotion, grasping, active object categorization, as well as interactive skills such as joint manipulation of an object with a human peer, and linguistic skills such as the grounded and situated meaning of human language. Learning can happen either through autonomous self-exploration or through guidance from a human teacher, like for example in robot learning by imitation. Robot learning can be closely related to adaptive control, reinforcement learning as well as developmental robotics which considers the problem of autonomous lifelong acquisition of repertoires of skills. While machine learning is frequently used by computer vision algorithms employed in the context of robotics, these applications are usually not referred to as "robot learning". == Imitation learning == Many research groups are developing techniques where robots learn by imitating. This includes various techniques for learning from demonstration (sometimes also referred to as "programming by demonstration") and observational learning. == Sharing learned skills and knowledge == In Tellex's "Million Object Challenge", the goal is robots that learn how to spot and handle simple items and upload their data to the cloud to allow other robots to analyze and use the information. RoboBrain is a knowledge engine for robots which can be freely accessed by any device wishing to carry out a task. The database gathers new information about tasks as robots perform them, by searching the Internet, interpreting natural language text, images, and videos, object recognition as well as interaction. The project is led by Ashutosh Saxena at Stanford University. RoboEarth is a project that has been described as a "World Wide Web for robots" − it is a network and database repository where robots can share information and learn from each other and a cloud for outsourcing heavy computation tasks. The project brings together researchers from five major universities in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain and is backed by the European Union. Google Research, DeepMind, and Google X have decided to allow their robots share their experiences. == Vision-language-action model == Research groups and companies are developing vision-language-action models, foundation models that allow robotic control through the combination of vision and language. Google DeepMind, Figure AI and Hugging Face are actively working on that.
K-nearest neighbors algorithm
In statistics, the k-nearest neighbors algorithm (k-NN) is a non-parametric supervised learning method. It was first developed by Evelyn Fix and Joseph Hodges in 1951, and later expanded by Thomas Cover. In classification, a new example is assigned a label based on the labels of its k nearest training examples; in regression, the prediction is computed from the values of those neighbors. Most often, it is used for classification, as a k-NN classifier, the output of which is a class membership. An object is classified by a plurality vote of its neighbors, with the object being assigned to the class most common among its k nearest neighbors (k is a positive integer, typically small). If k = 1, then the object is simply assigned to the class of that single nearest neighbor. The k-NN algorithm can also be generalized for regression. In k-NN regression, also known as nearest neighbor smoothing, the output is the property value for the object. This value is the average of the values of k nearest neighbors. If k = 1, then the output is simply assigned to the value of that single nearest neighbor, also known as nearest neighbor interpolation. For both classification and regression, a useful technique can be to assign weights to the contributions of the neighbors, so that nearer neighbors contribute more to the average than distant ones. For example, a common weighting scheme consists of giving each neighbor a weight of 1/d, where d is the distance to the neighbor. The input consists of the k closest training examples in a data set. The neighbors are taken from a set of objects for which the class (for k-NN classification) or the object property value (for k-NN regression) is known. This can be thought of as the training set for the algorithm, though no explicit training step is required. A peculiarity (sometimes even a disadvantage) of the k-NN algorithm is its sensitivity to the local structure of the data. In k-NN classification the function is only approximated locally and all computation is deferred until function evaluation. Since this algorithm relies on distance, if the features represent different physical units or come in vastly different scales, then feature-wise normalizing of the training data can greatly improve its accuracy. == Statistical setting == Suppose we have pairs ( X 1 , Y 1 ) , ( X 2 , Y 2 ) , … , ( X n , Y n ) {\displaystyle (X_{1},Y_{1}),(X_{2},Y_{2}),\dots ,(X_{n},Y_{n})} taking values in R d × { 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}\times \{1,2\}} , where Y is the class label of X, so that X | Y = r ∼ P r {\displaystyle X|Y=r\sim P_{r}} for r = 1 , 2 {\displaystyle r=1,2} (and probability distributions P r {\displaystyle P_{r}} ). Given some norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} on R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} and a point x ∈ R d {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , let ( X ( 1 ) , Y ( 1 ) ) , … , ( X ( n ) , Y ( n ) ) {\displaystyle (X_{(1)},Y_{(1)}),\dots ,(X_{(n)},Y_{(n)})} be a reordering of the training data such that ‖ X ( 1 ) − x ‖ ≤ ⋯ ≤ ‖ X ( n ) − x ‖ {\displaystyle \|X_{(1)}-x\|\leq \dots \leq \|X_{(n)}-x\|} . == Algorithm == The training examples are vectors in a multidimensional feature space, each with a class label. The training phase of the algorithm consists only of storing the feature vectors and class labels of the training samples. In the classification phase, k is a user-defined constant, and an unlabeled vector (a query or test point) is classified by assigning the label which is most frequent among the k training samples nearest to that query point. A commonly used distance metric for continuous variables is Euclidean distance. For discrete variables, such as for text classification, another metric can be used, such as the overlap metric (or Hamming distance). In the context of gene expression microarray data, for example, k-NN has been employed with correlation coefficients, such as Pearson and Spearman, as a metric. Often, the classification accuracy of k-NN can be improved significantly if the distance metric is learned with specialized algorithms such as large margin nearest neighbor or neighborhood components analysis. A drawback of the basic "majority voting" classification occurs when the class distribution is skewed. That is, examples of a more frequent class tend to dominate the prediction of the new example, because they tend to be common among the k nearest neighbors due to their large number. One way to overcome this problem is to weight the classification, taking into account the distance from the test point to each of its k nearest neighbors. The class (or value, in regression problems) of each of the k nearest points is multiplied by a weight proportional to the inverse of the distance from that point to the test point. Another way to overcome skew is by abstraction in data representation. For example, in a self-organizing map (SOM), each node is a representative (a center) of a cluster of similar points, regardless of their density in the original training data. k-NN can then be applied to the SOM. == Parameter selection == The best choice of k depends upon the data; generally, larger values of k reduces effect of the noise on the classification, but make boundaries between classes less distinct. A good k can be selected by various heuristic techniques (see hyperparameter optimization). The special case where the class is predicted to be the class of the closest training sample (i.e. when k = 1) is called the nearest neighbor algorithm. The accuracy of the k-NN algorithm can be severely degraded by the presence of noisy or irrelevant features, or if the feature scales are not consistent with their importance. Much research effort has been put into selecting or scaling features to improve classification. A particularly popular approach is the use of evolutionary algorithms to optimize feature scaling. Another popular approach is to scale features by the mutual information of the training data with the training classes. In binary (two class) classification problems, it is helpful to choose k to be an odd number as this avoids tied votes. One popular way of choosing the empirically optimal k in this setting is via bootstrap method. == The 1-nearest neighbor classifier == The most intuitive nearest neighbour type classifier is the one nearest neighbour classifier that assigns a point x to the class of its closest neighbour in the feature space, that is C n 1 n n ( x ) = Y ( 1 ) {\displaystyle C_{n}^{1nn}(x)=Y_{(1)}} . As the size of training data set approaches infinity, the one nearest neighbour classifier guarantees an error rate of no worse than twice the Bayes error rate (the minimum achievable error rate given the distribution of the data). == The weighted nearest neighbour classifier == The k-nearest neighbour classifier can be viewed as assigning the k nearest neighbours a weight 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} and all others 0 weight. This can be generalised to weighted nearest neighbour classifiers. That is, where the ith nearest neighbour is assigned a weight w n i {\displaystyle w_{ni}} , with ∑ i = 1 n w n i = 1 {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}=1} . An analogous result on the strong consistency of weighted nearest neighbour classifiers also holds. Let C n w n n {\displaystyle C_{n}^{wnn}} denote the weighted nearest classifier with weights { w n i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{w_{ni}\}_{i=1}^{n}} . Subject to regularity conditions, which in asymptotic theory are conditional variables which require assumptions to differentiate among parameters with some criteria. On the class distributions the excess risk has the following asymptotic expansion R R ( C n w n n ) − R R ( C Bayes ) = ( B 1 s n 2 + B 2 t n 2 ) { 1 + o ( 1 ) } , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {R}}_{\mathcal {R}}(C_{n}^{wnn})-{\mathcal {R}}_{\mathcal {R}}(C^{\text{Bayes}})=\left(B_{1}s_{n}^{2}+B_{2}t_{n}^{2}\right)\{1+o(1)\},} for constants B 1 {\displaystyle B_{1}} and B 2 {\displaystyle B_{2}} where s n 2 = ∑ i = 1 n w n i 2 {\displaystyle s_{n}^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}^{2}} and t n = n − 2 / d ∑ i = 1 n w n i { i 1 + 2 / d − ( i − 1 ) 1 + 2 / d } {\displaystyle t_{n}=n^{-2/d}\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}\left\{i^{1+2/d}-(i-1)^{1+2/d}\right\}} . The optimal weighting scheme { w n i ∗ } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{w_{ni}^{}\}_{i=1}^{n}} , that balances the two terms in the display above, is given as follows: set k ∗ = ⌊ B n 4 d + 4 ⌋ {\displaystyle k^{}=\lfloor Bn^{\frac {4}{d+4}}\rfloor } , w n i ∗ = 1 k ∗ [ 1 + d 2 − d 2 k ∗ 2 / d { i 1 + 2 / d − ( i − 1 ) 1 + 2 / d } ] {\displaystyle w_{ni}^{}={\frac {1}{k^{}}}\left[1+{\frac {d}{2}}-{\frac {d}{2{k^{}}^{2/d}}}\{i^{1+2/d}-(i-1)^{1+2/d}\}\right]} for i = 1 , 2 , … , k ∗ {\displaystyle i=1,2,\dots ,k^{}} and w n i ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle w_{ni}^{}=0} for i = k ∗ + 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=k^{}+1,\dots ,n} . With optimal weights the dominant term in the asymptotic expansion of the excess risk is O ( n − 4 d + 4 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n^{-{\frac {4}{d+4}}})}