The CADE ATP System Competition (CASC) is an annual competition of fully automated theorem provers for classical logic. == Competition == CASC is associated with the Conference on Automated Deduction and the International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning organized by the Association for Automated Reasoning. It has inspired similar competition in related fields, in particular the successful SMT-COMP competition for satisfiability modulo theories, the SAT Competition for propositional reasoners, and the modal logic reasoning competition. The first CASC, CASC-13, was held as part of the 13th Conference on Automated Deduction at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, in 1996. Among the systems competing were Otter and SETHEO.
Automated restaurant
An automated restaurant or robotic restaurant is a restaurant that uses robots to do tasks such as delivering food and drink to the tables or cooking the food. Restaurant automation means the use of a restaurant management system to automate some or occasionally all of the major operations of a restaurant establishment. More recently, restaurants are opening that have completely or partially automated their services. These may include: taking orders, preparing food, serving, and billing. A few fully automated restaurants operate without any human intervention whatsoever. Robots are designed to help and sometimes replace human labour (such as waiters and chefs). The automation of restaurants may also allow for the option for greater customization of an order. == History == === Vending machines === In the late 19th and early 20th century a number of restaurants served food solely through vending machines. These restaurants were called automats or, in Japan, shokkenki. Customers ordered their food directly through the machines. === Sushi conveyors === Yoshiaki Shiraishi is a Japanese innovator who is known for the creation of conveyor belt sushi. He had the idea following difficulty staffing his small sushi restaurant and managing the restaurant on his own. He was inspired seeing beer bottles on a conveyor belt in an Asahi brewery. Yoshiaki's restaurants are an early example of restaurant automation; they used a conveyor belt to distribute dishes around the restaurant, eliminating the need for waiters. This example of automation dates back to the Japanese economic miracle; the first of Yoshiaki's conveyor belt sushi restaurants was opened under the name Mawaru Genroku Sushi in 1958, in Osaka. === Partial automation === As of 2011, across Europe, McDonald's had already begun implementing 7,000 touch screen kiosks that could handle cashiering duties. From 2015 to 2020, Zume had an automated pizza parlor. Later companies would try to produce smaller, less ambitious devices, with one robotics company producing a machine that could automate the slowest and most repetitive parts of assembling a pizza, such as spreading pizza sauce or placing slices of pepperoni, while leaving other customizations to employees. In 2020, a restaurant in the Netherlands began trialling the use of a robot to serve guests. In September 2021, Karakuri's 'Semblr' food service robot served personalised lunches for the 4,000 employees of grocery technology solutions provider ocado Group's head offices in Hatfield, UK. 2,700 different combinations of dishes were on offer. Customers could specify in grams what hot and cold items, proteins, sauces and fresh toppings they wanted. In 2021, Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science engineers developed a method of cooking 3D printed chicken with software-controlled robotic lasers. The “Digital Food” team exposed raw 3D printed chicken structures to both blue and infrared light. They then assessed the cooking depth, colour development, moisture retention and flavour differences of the laser-cooked 3D printed samples in comparison to stove-cooked meat. In June 2022 a California nonprofit chain of residential communities, Front Porch, experimented with robots in dining rooms at two locations to supplement wait staff by carrying plated food and drink to tables, and removing dishes. 65% of residents found the robots helpful, with 51% saying they let the staff spend more quality time with diners. 51% of staff were "excited" and 58% said they enabled more quality time with diners. The chain has 19 senior living communities (and 35 affordable housing communities), so it has potential to expand robots to more dining rooms. It is shifting to memory care, which may affect plans. == Rationales == === Advantages === Efficiency: Automated restaurants can significantly enhance operational efficiency by minimizing human error and reducing service time. With automated ordering, payment, and food preparation systems, customers can enjoy faster service and reduced waiting times. Cost savings: By reducing the need for human staff, automated restaurants can potentially lower labor costs. This can be particularly beneficial in areas with high labor expenses, as it allows for better resource allocation and cost management. Consistency: Automation ensures consistency in food quality and presentation. With precise portion control and standardized cooking methods, customers can expect the same quality and taste in their meals every time they visit. Enhanced customer experience: Self-service kiosks and automated systems provide customers with control and convenience. They can customize their orders, browse through menu options, and pay seamlessly, creating a more interactive and satisfying dining experience. === Disadvantages === Lack of personal touch: Automated restaurants may lack the personal interaction and warmth that traditional restaurants provide. Some customers prefer the human touch, personalized recommendations, and the social aspect of dining out. Technical issues: Reliance on technology means that technical glitches and malfunctions can occur, resulting in service disruptions or delays. Maintenance and technical support become critical in ensuring smooth operations. Limited menu complexity: The automation process may be better suited for standardized menu items rather than complex or customized dishes. The ability to cater to unique dietary preferences or accommodate special requests may be limited. Employment implications: Automated restaurants may result in job losses for traditional restaurant staff, potentially impacting the local workforce. It is important to consider the social and economic implications of adopting such technology. == Locations == Automated restaurants have been opening in many countries. Examples include: Nala Restaurant in Naperville, Illinois Fritz's Railroad Restaurant in Kansas City, Kansas Výtopna, a Railway Restaurant using model trains: franchise of various restaurants and coffeehouses in the Czech Republic Bagger's Restaurant in Nuremberg, Germany FuA-Men Restaurant, a ramen restaurant located in Nagoya, Japan Fōster Nutrition in Buenos Aires, Argentina Dalu Robot Restaurant in Jinan, China Haohai Robot Restaurant in Harbin, China Robot Kitchen Restaurant in Hong Kong Robo-Chef restaurant in Tehran, Iran, started in 2017, is the first robotic and "waiterless" restaurant of the Middle East. MIT graduates opened Spyce Kitchens in downtown Boston, Massachusetts, in 2018 Foodom, under Country Garden Holdings, opened January 12, 2020, in Guangzhou, China Robot Chacha, the first robot restaurant of India, is planning to open in the capital city of New Delhi. Kura Revolving Sushi Bar, with a number of locations in the United States, uses a tablets at tables for ordering, a conveyor belt to deliver food, and robots to deliver drinks and condiments. Chipotle Mexican Grill is beginning to deploy the Hyphen Makeline, which assembles up to 350 bowls and salads automatically per hour, and Chippy, an automatic tortilla chip fryer made by Miso Robotics. Serious Dumplings in Boca Raton, Florida
Minimum Population Search
In evolutionary computation, Minimum Population Search (MPS) is a computational method that optimizes a problem by iteratively trying to improve a set of candidate solutions with regard to a given measure of quality. It solves a problem by evolving a small population of candidate solutions by means of relatively simple arithmetical operations. MPS is a metaheuristic as it makes few or no assumptions about the problem being optimized and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. For problems where finding the precise global optimum is less important than finding an acceptable local optimum in a fixed amount of time, using a metaheuristic such as MPS may be preferable to alternatives such as brute-force search or gradient descent. MPS is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means MPS does not require for the optimization problem to be differentiable as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. MPS can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. == Background == In a similar way to Differential evolution, MPS uses difference vectors between the members of the population in order to generate new solutions. It attempts to provide an efficient use of function evaluations by maintaining a small population size. If the population size is smaller than the dimensionality of the search space, then the solutions generated through difference vectors will be constrained to the n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} dimensional hyperplane. A smaller population size will lead to a more restricted subspace. With a population size equal to the dimensionality of the problem ( n = d ) {\displaystyle (n=d)} , the “line/hyperplane points” in MPS will be generated within a d − 1 {\displaystyle d-1} dimensional hyperplane. Taking a step orthogonal to this hyperplane will allow the search process to cover all the dimensions of the search space. Population size is a fundamental parameter in the performance of population-based heuristics. Larger populations promote exploration, but they also allow fewer generations, and this can reduce the chance of convergence. Searching with a small population can increase the chances of convergence and the efficient use of function evaluations, but it can also induce the risk of premature convergence. If the risk of premature convergence can be avoided, then a population-based heuristic could benefit from the efficiency and faster convergence rate of a smaller population. To avoid premature convergence, it is important to have a diversified population. By including techniques for explicitly increasing diversity and exploration, it is possible to have smaller populations with less risk of premature convergence. === Thresheld Convergence === Thresheld Convergence (TC) is a diversification technique which attempts to separate the processes of exploration and exploitation. TC uses a “threshold” function to establish a minimum search step, and managing this step makes it possible to influence the transition from exploration to exploitation, convergence is thus “held” back until the last stages of the search process. The goal of a controlled transition is to avoid an early concentration of the population around a few search regions and avoid the loss of diversity which can cause premature convergence. Thresheld Convergence has been successfully applied to several population-based metaheuristics such as Particle Swarm Optimization, Differential evolution, Evolution strategies, Simulated annealing and Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. The ideal case for Thresheld Convergence is to have one sample solution from each attraction basin, and for each sample solution to have the same relative fitness with respect to its local optimum. Enforcing a minimum step aims to achieve this ideal case. In MPS Thresheld Convergence is specifically used to preserve diversity and avoid premature convergence by establishing a minimum search step. By disallowing new solutions which are too close to members of the current population, TC forces a strong exploration during the early stages of the search while preserving the diversity of the (small) population. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the MPS algorithm works by having a population of size equal to the dimension of the problem. New solutions are generated by exploring the hyperplane defined by the current solutions (by means of difference vectors) and performing an additional orthogonal step in order to avoid getting caught in this hyperplane. The step sizes are controlled by the Thresheld Convergence technique, which gradually reduces step sizes as the search process advances. An outline for the algorithm is given below: Generate the first initial population. Allowing these solutions to lie near the bounds of the search space generally gives good results: s k = ( r s 1 ∗ b o u n d 1 / 2 , r s 2 ∗ b o u n d 2 / 2 , . . . , r s n ∗ b o u n d n / 2 ) {\displaystyle s_{k}=(rs_{1}bound_{1}/2,rs_{2}bound_{2}/2,...,rs_{n}bound_{n}/2)} where s k {\displaystyle s_{k}} is the k {\displaystyle k} -th population member, r s i {\displaystyle rs_{i}} are random numbers which can be −1 or 1, and the b o u n d i {\displaystyle bound_{i}} are the lower and upper bounds on each dimension. While a stop condition is not reached: Update threshold convergence values ( m i n _ s t e p {\displaystyle min\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} ) Calculate the centroid of the current population ( x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} ) For each member of the population ( x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} ), generate a new offspring as follows: Uniformly generate a scaling factor ( F i {\displaystyle F_{i}} ) between − m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle -max\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} Generate a vector ( x o {\displaystyle x_{o}} ) orthogonal to the difference vector between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} Calculate a scaling factor for the orthogonal vector: m i n _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m i n _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle min\_orth=sqrt(max(min\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} m a x _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m a x _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle max\_orth=sqrt(max(max\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} o r t h _ s t e p = u n i f o r m ( m i n _ o r t h , m a x _ o r t h ) {\displaystyle orth\_step=uniform(min\_orth,max\_orth)} Generate the new solution by adding the difference and the orthogonal vectors to the original solution n e w _ s o l u t i o n = x i + F i ∗ ( x i − x c ) ∗ o r t h _ s t e p ∗ x o {\displaystyle new\_solution=x_{i}+F_{i}(x_{i}-x_{c})orth\_stepx_{o}} Pick the best members between the old population and the new one by discarding the least fit members. Return the single best solution or the best population found as the final result.
Canonical correspondence analysis
In multivariate analysis, canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) is an ordination technique that determines axes from the response data as a unimodal combination of measured predictors. CCA is commonly used in ecology in order to extract gradients that drive the composition of ecological communities. CCA extends correspondence analysis (CA) with regression, in order to incorporate predictor variables. == History == CCA was developed in 1986 by Cajo ter Braak and implemented in the program CANOCO, an extension of DECORANA. To date, CCA is one of the most popular multivariate methods in ecology, despite the availability of contemporary alternatives. CCA was originally derived and implemented using an algorithm of weighted averaging, though Legendre & Legendre (1998) derived an alternative algorithm. == Assumptions == The requirements of a CCA are that the samples are random and independent. Also, the data are categorical and that the independent variables are consistent within the sample site and error-free. The original publication states the need for equal species tolerances, equal species maxima, and equispaced or uniformly distributed species optima and site scores.
Ilastik
ilastik is free open source software for image classification and segmentation. No previous experience in image processing is required to run the software. Since 2018 ilastik is further developed and maintained by Anna Kreshuk's group at European Molecular Biology Laboratory. == Features == ilastik allows user to annotate an arbitrary number of classes in images with a mouse interface. Using these user annotations and the generic (nonlinear) image features, the user can train a random forest classifier. Trained ilastik classifiers can be applied new data not included in the training set in ilastik via its batch processing functionality, or without using the graphical user interface, in headless mode. ilastik can be integrated into various related tools: Pre-trained workflows can be executed directly from ImageJ/Fiji using the ilastik-ImageJ plugin. Pre-trained ilastik Pixel Classification workflows can be run directly in Python with the ilastik Python package, which is available via conda. ilastik has a CellProfiler module to use ilastik classifiers to process images within a CellProfiler framework. == History == ilastik was first released in 2011 by scientists at the Heidelberg Collaboratory for Image Processing (HCI), University of Heidelberg. == Application == The Interactive Learning and Segmentation Toolkit Carving Cell classification and neuron classification Synapse detection Cell tracking Neural Network Classification == Resources == ilastik project is hosted on GitHub. It is a collaborative project, any contributions such as comments, bug reports, bug fixes or code contributions are welcome. The ilastik team can be contacted for user support on the image.sc forum.
Deep learning
In machine learning, deep learning (DL) focuses on utilizing multilayered neural networks to perform tasks such as classification, regression, and representation learning. The field takes inspiration from biological neuroscience and revolves around stacking artificial neurons into layers and "training" them to process data. The adjective "deep" refers to the use of multiple layers (ranging from three to several hundred or thousands) in the network. Methods used can be supervised, semi-supervised or unsupervised. Some common deep learning network architectures include fully connected networks, deep belief networks, recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks, generative adversarial networks, transformers, and neural radiance fields. These architectures have been applied to fields including computer vision, speech recognition, natural language processing, machine translation, bioinformatics, drug design, medical image analysis, climate science, material inspection and board game programs, where they have produced results comparable to and in some cases surpassing human expert performance. Early forms of neural networks were inspired by information processing and distributed communication nodes in biological systems, particularly the human brain. However, current neural networks do not intend to model the brain function of organisms, and are generally seen as low-quality models for that purpose. == Overview == Most modern deep learning models are based on multi-layered neural networks such as convolutional neural networks and transformers, although they can also include propositional formulas or latent variables organized layer-wise in deep generative models such as the nodes in deep belief networks and deep Boltzmann machines. Fundamentally, deep learning refers to a class of machine learning algorithms in which a hierarchy of layers is used to transform input data into a progressively more abstract and composite representation. For example, in an image recognition model, the raw input may be an image (represented as a tensor of pixels). The first representational layer may attempt to identify basic shapes such as lines and circles, the second layer may compose and encode arrangements of edges, the third layer may encode a nose and eyes, and the fourth layer may recognize that the image contains a face. Importantly, a deep learning process can learn which features to optimally place at which level on its own. Prior to deep learning, machine learning techniques often involved hand-crafted feature engineering to transform the data into a more suitable representation for a classification algorithm to operate on. In the deep learning approach, features are not hand-crafted and the model discovers useful feature representations from the data automatically. This does not eliminate the need for hand-tuning; for example, varying numbers of layers and layer sizes can provide different degrees of abstraction. The word "deep" in "deep learning" refers to the number of layers through which the data is transformed. More precisely, deep learning systems have a substantial credit assignment path (CAP) depth. The CAP is the chain of transformations from input to output. CAPs describe potentially causal connections between input and output. For a feedforward neural network, the depth of the CAPs is that of the network and is the number of hidden layers plus one (as the output layer is also parameterized). For recurrent neural networks, in which a signal may propagate through a layer more than once, the CAP depth is potentially unlimited. No universally agreed-upon threshold of depth divides shallow learning from deep learning, but most researchers agree that deep learning involves CAP depth higher than two. CAP of depth two has been shown to be a universal approximator in the sense that it can emulate any function. Beyond that, more layers do not add to the function approximator ability of the network. Deep models (CAP > two) are able to extract better features than shallow models and hence, extra layers help in learning the features effectively. Deep learning architectures can be constructed with a greedy layer-by-layer method. Deep learning helps to disentangle these abstractions and pick out which features improve performance. Deep learning algorithms can be applied to unsupervised learning tasks. This is an important benefit because unlabeled data is more abundant than labeled data. Examples of deep structures that can be trained in an unsupervised manner are deep belief networks. The term deep learning was introduced to the machine learning community by Rina Dechter in 1986, and to artificial neural networks by Igor Aizenberg and colleagues in 2000, in the context of Boolean threshold neurons. The etymology of the term is more complicated. == Interpretations == Deep neural networks are generally interpreted in terms of the universal approximation theorem or probabilistic inference. The classic universal approximation theorem concerns the capacity of feedforward neural networks with a single hidden layer of finite size to approximate continuous functions. In 1989, the first proof was published by George Cybenko for sigmoid activation functions and was generalised to feed-forward multi-layer architectures in 1991 by Kurt Hornik. Recent work also showed that universal approximation also holds for non-bounded activation functions such as Kunihiko Fukushima's rectified linear unit. The universal approximation theorem for deep neural networks concerns the capacity of networks with bounded width but the depth is allowed to grow. Lu et al. proved that if the width of a deep neural network with ReLU activation is strictly larger than the input dimension, then the network can approximate any Lebesgue integrable function; if the width is smaller or equal to the input dimension, then a deep neural network is not a universal approximator. The probabilistic interpretation derives from the field of machine learning. It features inference, as well as the optimization concepts of training and testing, related to fitting and generalization, respectively. More specifically, the probabilistic interpretation considers the activation nonlinearity as a cumulative distribution function. The probabilistic interpretation led to the introduction of dropout as regularizer in neural networks. The probabilistic interpretation was introduced by researchers including Hopfield, Widrow and Narendra and popularized in surveys such as the one by Bishop. == History == === Before 1980 === There are two types of artificial neural network (ANN): feedforward neural network (FNN) or multilayer perceptron (MLP) and recurrent neural networks (RNN). RNNs have cycles in their connectivity structure, whereas FNNs do not. In the 1920s, Wilhelm Lenz and Ernst Ising created the Ising model which is essentially a non-learning RNN architecture consisting of neuron-like threshold elements. In 1972, Shun'ichi Amari made this architecture adaptive. His learning RNN was republished by John Hopfield in 1982. Other early recurrent neural networks were published by Kaoru Nakano in 1971. Already in 1948, Alan Turing produced work on "Intelligent Machinery" that was not published in his lifetime, containing "ideas related to artificial evolution and learning RNNs". Frank Rosenblatt (1958) proposed the perceptron, an MLP with 3 layers: an input layer, a hidden layer with randomized weights that did not learn, and an output layer. He later published a 1962 book that also introduced variants and computer experiments, including a version with four-layer perceptrons "with adaptive preterminal networks" where the last two layers have learned weights (here he credits H. D. Block and B. W. Knight). The book cites an earlier network by R. D. Joseph (1960) "functionally equivalent to a variation of" this four-layer system (the book mentions Joseph over 30 times). Should Joseph therefore be considered the originator of proper adaptive multilayer perceptrons with learning hidden units? Unfortunately, the learning algorithm was not a functional one, and fell into oblivion. The first working deep learning algorithm was the Group method of data handling, a method to train arbitrarily deep neural networks, published by Alexey Ivakhnenko and Lapa in 1965. They regarded it as a form of polynomial regression, or a generalization of Rosenblatt's perceptron to handle more complex, nonlinear, and hierarchical relationships. A 1971 paper described a deep network with eight layers trained by this method, which is based on layer by layer training through regression analysis. Superfluous hidden units are pruned using a separate validation set. Since the activation functions of the nodes are Kolmogorov-Gabor polynomials, these were also the first deep networks with multiplicative units or "gates". The first deep learning multilayer perceptron trained by stochastic gradient descent was published in 1967 by Shun'ichi
Stochastic variance reduction
(Stochastic) variance reduction is an algorithmic approach to minimizing functions that can be decomposed into finite sums. By exploiting the finite sum structure, variance reduction techniques are able to achieve convergence rates that are impossible to achieve with methods that treat the objective as an infinite sum, as in the classical Stochastic approximation setting. Variance reduction approaches are widely used for training machine learning models such as logistic regression and support vector machines as these problems have finite-sum structure and uniform conditioning that make them ideal candidates for variance reduction. == Finite sum objectives == A function f {\displaystyle f} is considered to have finite sum structure if it can be decomposed into a summation or average: f ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ( x ) , {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}(x),} where the function value and derivative of each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} can be queried independently. Although variance reduction methods can be applied for any positive n {\displaystyle n} and any f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} structure, their favorable theoretical and practical properties arise when n {\displaystyle n} is large compared to the condition number of each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} , and when the f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} have similar (but not necessarily identical) Lipschitz smoothness and strong convexity constants. The finite sum structure should be contrasted with the stochastic approximation setting which deals with functions of the form f ( θ ) = E ξ [ F ( θ , ξ ) ] {\textstyle f(\theta )=\operatorname {E} _{\xi }[F(\theta ,\xi )]} which is the expected value of a function depending on a random variable ξ {\textstyle \xi } . Any finite sum problem can be optimized using a stochastic approximation algorithm by using F ( ⋅ , ξ ) = f ξ {\displaystyle F(\cdot ,\xi )=f_{\xi }} . == Rapid Convergence == Stochastic variance reduced methods without acceleration are able to find a minima of f {\displaystyle f} within accuracy ϵ > {\displaystyle \epsilon >} , i.e. f ( x ) − f ( x ∗ ) ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle f(x)-f(x_{})\leq \epsilon } in a number of steps of the order: O ( ( L μ + n ) log ( 1 ϵ ) ) . {\displaystyle O\left(\left({\frac {L}{\mu }}+n\right)\log \left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)\right).} The number of steps depends only logarithmically on the level of accuracy required, in contrast to the stochastic approximation framework, where the number of steps O ( L / ( μ ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O{\bigl (}L/(\mu \epsilon ){\bigr )}} required grows proportionally to the accuracy required. Stochastic variance reduction methods converge almost as fast as the gradient descent method's O ( ( L / μ ) log ( 1 / ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O{\bigl (}(L/\mu )\log(1/\epsilon ){\bigr )}} rate, despite using only a stochastic gradient, at a 1 / n {\displaystyle 1/n} lower cost than gradient descent. Accelerated methods in the stochastic variance reduction framework achieve even faster convergence rates, requiring only O ( ( n L μ + n ) log ( 1 ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O\left(\left({\sqrt {\frac {nL}{\mu }}}+n\right)\log \left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)\right)} steps to reach ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } accuracy, potentially n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n}}} faster than non-accelerated methods. Lower complexity bounds. for the finite sum class establish that this rate is the fastest possible for smooth strongly convex problems. == Approaches == Variance reduction approaches fall within four main categories: table averaging methods, full-gradient snapshot methods, recursive estimator methods (e.g., SARAH), and dual methods. Each category contains methods designed for dealing with convex, non-smooth, and non-convex problems, each differing in hyper-parameter settings and other algorithmic details. === SAGA === In the SAGA method, the prototypical table averaging approach, a table of size n {\displaystyle n} is maintained that contains the last gradient witnessed for each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} term, which we denote g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} . At each step, an index i {\displaystyle i} is sampled, and a new gradient ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} is computed. The iterate x k {\displaystyle x_{k}} is updated with: x k + 1 = x k − γ [ ∇ f i ( x k ) − g i + 1 n ∑ i = 1 n g i ] , {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma \left[\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})-g_{i}+{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}g_{i}\right],} and afterwards table entry i {\displaystyle i} is updated with g i = ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle g_{i}=\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} . SAGA is among the most popular of the variance reduction methods due to its simplicity, easily adaptable theory, and excellent performance. It is the successor of the SAG method, improving on its flexibility and performance. === SVRG === The stochastic variance reduced gradient method (SVRG), the prototypical snapshot method, uses a similar update except instead of using the average of a table it instead uses a full-gradient that is reevaluated at a snapshot point x ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}} at regular intervals of m ≥ n {\displaystyle m\geq n} iterations. The update becomes: x k + 1 = x k − γ [ ∇ f i ( x k ) − ∇ f i ( x ~ ) + ∇ f ( x ~ ) ] , {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma [\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})-\nabla f_{i}({\tilde {x}})+\nabla f({\tilde {x}})],} This approach requires two stochastic gradient evaluations per step, one to compute ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} and one to compute ∇ f i ( x ~ ) , {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}({\tilde {x}}),} where-as table averaging approaches need only one. Despite the high computational cost, SVRG is popular as its simple convergence theory is highly adaptable to new optimization settings. It also has lower storage requirements than tabular averaging approaches, which make it applicable in many settings where tabular methods can not be used. === SARAH === The SARAH (stochastic recursive gradient) method maintains a recursive estimator of the gradient rather than storing a table of past gradients (as in SAGA) or computing periodic full-gradient snapshots (as in SVRG). At the start of an inner loop, a full gradient is computed at a reference point x ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}} : v 0 = ∇ f ( x ~ ) {\displaystyle v_{0}=\nabla f({\tilde {x}})} . For inner iterations, with a sampled index i k {\displaystyle i_{k}} , the gradient estimator and iterate are updated by: v k = ∇ f i k ( x k ) − ∇ f i k ( x k − 1 ) + v k − 1 , x k + 1 = x k − γ v k . {\displaystyle v_{k}=\nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k})-\nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k-1})+v_{k-1},\qquad x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma v_{k}.} This recursion requires two component-gradient evaluations per step ∇ f i k ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k})} and ∇ f i k ( x k − 1 ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k-1})} but does not need to store per-sample gradients, resulting in lower memory cost than table-averaging methods. SARAH admits linear convergence for strongly convex functions and has been extended to more general nonconvex and composite problems. === SDCA === Exploiting the dual representation of the objective leads to another variance reduction approach that is particularly suited to finite-sums where each term has a structure that makes computing the convex conjugate f i ∗ , {\displaystyle f_{i}^{},} or its proximal operator tractable. The standard SDCA method considers finite sums that have additional structure compared to generic finite sum setting: f ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ( x T v i ) + λ 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}(x^{T}v_{i})+{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\|x\|^{2},} where each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} is 1 dimensional and each v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} is a data point associated with f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} . SDCA solves the dual problem: max α ∈ R n − 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ∗ ( − α i ) − λ 2 ‖ 1 λ n ∑ i = 1 n α i v i ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle \max _{\alpha \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}}-{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}^{}(-\alpha _{i})-{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\left\|{\frac {1}{\lambda n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}v_{i}\right\|^{2},} by a stochastic coordinate ascent procedure, where at each step the objective is optimized with respect to a randomly chosen coordinate α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , leaving all other coordinates the same. An approximate primal solution x {\displaystyle x} can be recovered from the α {\displaystyle \alpha } values: x = 1 λ n ∑ i = 1 n α i v i {\displaystyle x={\frac {1}{\lambda n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}v_{i}} . This method obtains similar theoretical rates of convergence to other stochastic variance reduced methods, while avoiding the need to specify a step-size parameter. It is fast in practice when λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is large, but significantly slower than the other approaches when λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is small. == Accelerated approaches == Accelerated variance reduction methods are built upon the standard methods above. The earliest approaches make use of proximal operators t