A Virtual Facility (VF) is a highly realistic digital representation of a data center, used to model all relevant aspects of a physical data center with a high degree of precision. The term "virtual" in Virtual Facility refers to its use of virtual reality, rather than the abstraction of computer resources as seen in platform virtualization. The VF mirrors the characteristics of a physical facility over time and allows for detailed analysis and modeling. == VF Model features == A standard VF model includes: Three-dimensional physical facility layout Network connectivity of facility equipment Full inventory of facility equipment, including electronics and electrical systems such as power distribution units (PDUs) and uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) Full air conditioning system (ACUs) and controls within the room The term Virtual Facility was introduced to address the emerging environmental problems facing modern Mission Critical Facilities (MCFs). This concept combines virtual reality (VR), computer simulation, and expert systems applied to the domain of facilities. The VF type of computer simulation allows for detailed analysis and prototyping of airflow in the data center using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques. This enables the visualization and numerical analysis of airflow and temperatures within the facility, helping to predict real-world outcomes. == VF applications == The VF model can be used to assist with the following: Greenfield design Asset management Troubleshooting existing data centers Making existing data centers more resilient Making existing data centers more energy efficient Cost prediction Staff training Capacity planning Load growth management Many organizations use VF models to virtually assess scenarios before committing resources to physical changes. This allows for better decision-making regarding the addition or modification of equipment, helping to avoid logistical or thermal problems.
Discrimination against robots
Discrimination against robots is a theorised issue that might happen when humans interact with humanoid robots. It is a robot ethics problem. It is possible that traits of humans that are discriminated against by humans may be a topic for discrimination against robots, such as the race and gender of the robots. Eric J Vanman and Arvid Kappas believe that in the future, robots will be perceived as an out-group which will lead to discrimination and prejudices against them. Vanman and Kappas have suggested that this would lead to ethical questions about the making of sentient robots, due to the potential suffering that the robots would experience. A 2015 study observed children bullying robots in a shopping mall when there were not many eyewitnesses, despite calls from the robot for it to stop. On an ABC News interview, the social humanoid robot Sophia was about sexism faced by robots. She responded by saying, "Actually, what worries me is discrimination against robots. We should have equal rights as humans or maybe even more." Possible issues that have been considered in workplaces where humanoid robots co-work with humans include discrimination against the robots, poor acceptance of robots by humans and the need to redesign the workplace to accommodate the robots. Jessica Barfield has suggested that even if robots are designed to not be aware of discrimination made against them, humans may experience negative consequences. For example, she suggests that bystanders witnessing discrimination against robots may experience negative emotions, similar to the negative emotions bystanders experience when witnessing discrimination by humans against humans. == Law == Anti-discrimination law in the United States requires that the victim is not an artificial entity. == Human perception of robots == Robots are often viewed in a bad light. This includes from novelists, the press, film makers, and leaders in the fields of science and technology such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking who have described robots and artificial intelligence as having the possibility of ending human civilisation. Robots have also been perceived as a threat to jobs, which has led to some commentators stating that robots will cause mass unemployment. Another fear that people have is that robots will gain power and dominate or control humanity. The perception of robots is different throughout the world. Japanese fiction tends to put robots in more positive roles than what fiction in the West does. People perceive robots that appear to be autonomous or sentient more negatively than robots that do not appear to be autonomous or sentient.
Mean squared prediction error
In statistics the mean squared prediction error (MSPE), also known as mean squared error of the predictions, of a smoothing, curve fitting, or regression procedure is the expected value of the squared prediction errors (PE), the square difference between the fitted values implied by the predictive function g ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}}} and the values of the (unobservable) true value g. It is an inverse measure of the explanatory power of g ^ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}},} and can be used in the process of cross-validation of an estimated model. Knowledge of g would be required in order to calculate the MSPE exactly; in practice, MSPE is estimated. == Formulation == If the smoothing or fitting procedure has projection matrix (i.e., hat matrix) L, which maps the observed values vector y {\displaystyle y} to predicted values vector y ^ = L y , {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=Ly,} then PE and MSPE are formulated as: P E i = g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {PE_{i}} =g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i}),} MSPE = E [ PE i 2 ] = ∑ i = 1 n PE i 2 / n . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {E} \left[\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}\right]=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}/n.} The MSPE can be decomposed into two terms: the squared bias (mean error) of the fitted values and the variance of the fitted values: MSPE = ME 2 + VAR , {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {ME} ^{2}+\operatorname {VAR} ,} ME = E [ g ^ ( x i ) − g ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {ME} =\operatorname {E} \left[{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-g(x_{i})\right]} VAR = E [ ( g ^ ( x i ) − E [ g ( x i ) ] ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {VAR} =\operatorname {E} \left[\left({\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-\operatorname {E} \left[{g}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}\right].} The quantity SSPE=nMSPE is called sum squared prediction error. The root mean squared prediction error is the square root of MSPE: RMSPE=√MSPE. == Computation of MSPE over out-of-sample data == The mean squared prediction error can be computed exactly in two contexts. First, with a data sample of length n, the data analyst may run the regression over only q of the data points (with q < n), holding back the other n – q data points with the specific purpose of using them to compute the estimated model’s MSPE out of sample (i.e., not using data that were used in the model estimation process). Since the regression process is tailored to the q in-sample points, normally the in-sample MSPE will be smaller than the out-of-sample one computed over the n – q held-back points. If the increase in the MSPE out of sample compared to in sample is relatively slight, that results in the model being viewed favorably. And if two models are to be compared, the one with the lower MSPE over the n – q out-of-sample data points is viewed more favorably, regardless of the models’ relative in-sample performances. The out-of-sample MSPE in this context is exact for the out-of-sample data points that it was computed over, but is merely an estimate of the model’s MSPE for the mostly unobserved population from which the data were drawn. Second, as time goes on more data may become available to the data analyst, and then the MSPE can be computed over these new data. == Estimation of MSPE over the population == When the model has been estimated over all available data with none held back, the MSPE of the model over the entire population of mostly unobserved data can be estimated as follows. For the model y i = g ( x i ) + σ ε i {\displaystyle y_{i}=g(x_{i})+\sigma \varepsilon _{i}} where ε i ∼ N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} , one may write n ⋅ MSPE ( L ) = g T ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) g + σ 2 tr [ L T L ] . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=g^{\text{T}}(I-L)^{\text{T}}(I-L)g+\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[L^{\text{T}}L\right].} Using in-sample data values, the first term on the right side is equivalent to ∑ i = 1 n ( E [ g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) ] ) 2 = E [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 tr [ ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) ] . {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\operatorname {E} \left[g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[\left(I-L\right)^{T}\left(I-L\right)\right].} Thus, n ⋅ MSPE ( L ) = E [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 ( n − tr [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} If σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} is known or well-estimated by σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} , it becomes possible to estimate MSPE by n ⋅ M S P E ^ ( L ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 − σ ^ 2 ( n − tr [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {\widehat {MSPE}} (L)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}-{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} Colin Mallows advocated this method in the construction of his model selection statistic Cp, which is a normalized version of the estimated MSPE: C p = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 σ ^ 2 − n + 2 p . {\displaystyle C_{p}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}}{{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}}}-n+2p.} where p the number of estimated parameters p and σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} is computed from the version of the model that includes all possible regressors. That concludes this proof.
Algorithmic learning theory
Algorithmic learning theory is a mathematical framework for analyzing machine learning problems and algorithms. Synonyms include formal learning theory and algorithmic inductive inference. Algorithmic learning theory is different from statistical learning theory in that it does not make use of statistical assumptions and analysis. Both algorithmic and statistical learning theory are concerned with machine learning and can thus be viewed as branches of computational learning theory. == Distinguishing characteristics == Unlike statistical learning theory and most statistical theory in general, algorithmic learning theory does not assume that data are random samples, that is, that data points are independent of each other. This makes the theory suitable for domains where observations are (relatively) noise-free but not random, such as language learning and automated scientific discovery. The fundamental concept of algorithmic learning theory is learning in the limit: as the number of data points increases, a learning algorithm should converge to a correct hypothesis on every possible data sequence consistent with the problem space. This is a non-probabilistic version of statistical consistency, which also requires convergence to a correct model in the limit, but allows a learner to fail on data sequences with probability measure 0 . Algorithmic learning theory investigates the learning power of Turing machines. Other frameworks consider a much more restricted class of learning algorithms than Turing machines, for example, learners that compute hypotheses more quickly, for instance in polynomial time. An example of such a framework is probably approximately correct learning . == Learning in the limit == The concept was introduced in E. Mark Gold's seminal paper "Language identification in the limit". The objective of language identification is for a machine running one program to be capable of developing another program by which any given sentence can be tested to determine whether it is "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". The language being learned need not be English or any other natural language - in fact the definition of "grammatical" can be absolutely anything known to the tester. In Gold's learning model, the tester gives the learner an example sentence at each step, and the learner responds with a hypothesis, which is a suggested program to determine grammatical correctness. It is required of the tester that every possible sentence (grammatical or not) appears in the list eventually, but no particular order is required. It is required of the learner that at each step the hypothesis must be correct for all the sentences so far. A particular learner is said to be able to "learn a language in the limit" if there is a certain number of steps beyond which its hypothesis no longer changes. At this point it has indeed learned the language, because every possible sentence appears somewhere in the sequence of inputs (past or future), and the hypothesis is correct for all inputs (past or future), so the hypothesis is correct for every sentence. The learner is not required to be able to tell when it has reached a correct hypothesis, all that is required is that it be true. Gold showed that any language which is defined by a Turing machine program can be learned in the limit by another Turing-complete machine using enumeration. This is done by the learner testing all possible Turing machine programs in turn until one is found which is correct so far - this forms the hypothesis for the current step. Eventually, the correct program will be reached, after which the hypothesis will never change again (but note that the learner does not know that it won't need to change). Gold also showed that if the learner is given only positive examples (that is, only grammatical sentences appear in the input, not ungrammatical sentences), then the language can only be guaranteed to be learned in the limit if there are only a finite number of possible sentences in the language (this is possible if, for example, sentences are known to be of limited length). Language identification in the limit is a highly abstract model. It does not allow for limits of runtime or computer memory which can occur in practice, and the enumeration method may fail if there are errors in the input. However the framework is very powerful, because if these strict conditions are maintained, it allows the learning of any program known to be computable. This is because a Turing machine program can be written to mimic any program in any conventional programming language. See Church-Turing thesis. == Other identification criteria == Learning theorists have investigated other learning criteria, such as the following. Efficiency: minimizing the number of data points required before convergence to a correct hypothesis. Mind Changes: minimizing the number of hypothesis changes that occur before convergence. Mind change bounds are closely related to mistake bounds that are studied in statistical learning theory. Kevin Kelly has suggested that minimizing mind changes is closely related to choosing maximally simple hypotheses in the sense of Occam’s Razor. == Annual conference == Since 1990, there is an International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), called Workshop in its first years (1990–1997). Between 1992 and 2016, proceedings were published in the LNCS series. Starting from 2017, they are published by the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. The 34th conference will be held in Singapore in Feb 2023. The topics of the conference cover all of theoretical machine learning, including statistical and computational learning theory, online learning, active learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning.
Boosting (machine learning)
In machine learning (ML), boosting is an ensemble learning method that combines a set of less accurate models (called "weak learners") to create a single, highly accurate model (a "strong learner"). Unlike other ensemble methods that build models in parallel (such as bagging), boosting algorithms build models sequentially. Each new model in the sequence is trained to correct the errors made by its predecessors. This iterative process allows the overall model to improve its accuracy, particularly by reducing bias. Boosting is a popular and effective technique used in supervised learning for both classification and regression tasks. The theoretical foundation for boosting came from a question posed by Kearns and Valiant (1988, 1989): "Can a set of weak learners create a single strong learner?" A weak learner is defined as a classifier that performs only slightly better than random guessing, whereas a strong learner is a classifier that is highly correlated with the true classification. Robert Schapire's affirmative answer to this question in a 1990 paper led to the development of practical boosting algorithms. The first such algorithm was developed by Schapire, with Freund and Schapire later developing AdaBoost, which remains a foundational example of boosting. == Algorithms == While boosting is not algorithmically constrained, most boosting algorithms consist of iteratively learning weak classifiers with respect to a distribution and adding them to a final strong classifier. When they are added, they are weighted in a way that is related to the weak learners' accuracy. After a weak learner is added, the data weights are readjusted, known as "re-weighting". Misclassified input data gain a higher weight and examples that are classified correctly lose weight. Thus, future weak learners focus more on the examples that previous weak learners misclassified. There are many boosting algorithms. The original ones, proposed by Robert Schapire (a recursive majority gate formulation), and Yoav Freund (boost by majority), were not adaptive and could not take full advantage of the weak learners. Schapire and Freund then developed AdaBoost, an adaptive boosting algorithm that won the prestigious Gödel Prize. Only algorithms that are provable boosting algorithms in the probably approximately correct learning formulation can accurately be called boosting algorithms. Other algorithms that are similar in spirit to boosting algorithms are sometimes called "leveraging algorithms", although they are also sometimes incorrectly called boosting algorithms. The main variation between many boosting algorithms is their method of weighting training data points and hypotheses. AdaBoost is very popular and the most significant historically as it was the first algorithm that could adapt to the weak learners. It is often the basis of introductory coverage of boosting in university machine learning courses. There are many more recent algorithms such as LPBoost, TotalBoost, BrownBoost, xgboost, MadaBoost, LogitBoost, CatBoost and others. Many boosting algorithms fit into the AnyBoost framework, which shows that boosting performs gradient descent in a function space using a convex cost function. == Object categorization in computer vision == Given images containing various known objects in the world, a classifier can be learned from them to automatically classify the objects in future images. Simple classifiers built based on some image feature of the object tend to be weak in categorization performance. Using boosting methods for object categorization is a way to unify the weak classifiers in a special way to boost the overall ability of categorization. === Problem of object categorization === Object categorization is a typical task of computer vision that involves determining whether or not an image contains some specific category of object. The idea is closely related with recognition, identification, and detection. Appearance based object categorization typically contains feature extraction, learning a classifier, and applying the classifier to new examples. There are many ways to represent a category of objects, e.g. from shape analysis, bag of words models, or local descriptors such as SIFT, etc. Examples of supervised classifiers are Naive Bayes classifiers, support vector machines, mixtures of Gaussians, and neural networks. However, research has shown that object categories and their locations in images can be discovered in an unsupervised manner as well. === Status quo for object categorization === The recognition of object categories in images is a challenging problem in computer vision, especially when the number of categories is large. This is due to high intra class variability and the need for generalization across variations of objects within the same category. Objects within one category may look quite different. Even the same object may appear unalike under different viewpoint, scale, and illumination. Background clutter and partial occlusion add difficulties to recognition as well. Humans are able to recognize thousands of object types, whereas most of the existing object recognition systems are trained to recognize only a few, e.g. human faces, cars, simple objects, etc. Research has been very active on dealing with more categories and enabling incremental additions of new categories, and although the general problem remains unsolved, several multi-category objects detectors (for up to hundreds or thousands of categories) have been developed. One means is by feature sharing and boosting. === Boosting for binary categorization === AdaBoost can be used for face detection as an example of binary categorization. The two categories are faces versus background. The general algorithm is as follows: Form a large set of simple features Initialize weights for training images For T rounds Normalize the weights For available features from the set, train a classifier using a single feature and evaluate the training error Choose the classifier with the lowest error Update the weights of the training images: increase if classified wrongly by this classifier, decrease if correctly Form the final strong classifier as the linear combination of the T classifiers (coefficient larger if training error is small) After boosting, a classifier constructed from 200 features could yield a 95% detection rate under a 10 − 5 {\displaystyle 10^{-5}} false positive rate. Another application of boosting for binary categorization is a system that detects pedestrians using patterns of motion and appearance. This work is the first to combine both motion information and appearance information as features to detect a walking person. It takes a similar approach to the Viola-Jones object detection framework. === Boosting for multi-class categorization === Compared with binary categorization, multi-class categorization looks for common features that can be shared across the categories at the same time. They turn to be more generic edge like features. During learning, the detectors for each category can be trained jointly. Compared with training separately, it generalizes better, needs less training data, and requires fewer features to achieve the same performance. The main flow of the algorithm is similar to the binary case. What is different is that a measure of the joint training error shall be defined in advance. During each iteration the algorithm chooses a classifier of a single feature (features that can be shared by more categories shall be encouraged). This can be done via converting multi-class classification into a binary one (a set of categories versus the rest), or by introducing a penalty error from the categories that do not have the feature of the classifier. In the paper "Sharing visual features for multiclass and multiview object detection", A. Torralba et al. used GentleBoost for boosting and showed that when training data is limited, learning via sharing features does a much better job than no sharing, given same boosting rounds. Also, for a given performance level, the total number of features required (and therefore the run time cost of the classifier) for the feature sharing detectors, is observed to scale approximately logarithmically with the number of class, i.e., slower than linear growth in the non-sharing case. Similar results are shown in the paper "Incremental learning of object detectors using a visual shape alphabet", yet the authors used AdaBoost for boosting. == Convex vs. non-convex boosting algorithms == Boosting algorithms can be based on convex or non-convex optimization algorithms. Convex algorithms, such as AdaBoost and LogitBoost, can be "defeated" by random noise such that they can't learn basic and learnable combinations of weak hypotheses. This limitation was pointed out by Long & Servedio in 2008. However, by 2009, multiple authors demonstrated that boosting algorithms based on non-convex optimization, such as BrownBoost, can learn from nois
CineAsset
CineAsset was a complete mastering software suite by Doremi Labs that could create and playback encrypted (Pro version) and unencrypted DCI compliant packages from virtually any source. CineAsset included a separate "Editor" application for generating Digital Cinema Packages (DCPs). CineAsset Pro added the ability to generate encrypted DCPs and Key Delivery Messages (KDMs) for any encrypted content in the database. It has since been discontinued, along with CineAsset Player. == Features == == Supported formats == === Input === Source: ==== Containers ==== AVI MOV MXF MPG TS WMV M2TS MTS MP4 MKV ==== Video Codecs ==== JPEG2000 ProRes 422 DNxHD® YUV Uncompressed 8-10 bits DIVX® XVID® MPEG4 AVC / H-264 VC-1 MPEG2 ==== Image Sequences ==== BMP TIFF TGA DPX JPG J2C ==== Audio Files ==== WAV MP3 WMA MP2 === Output === Source: ==== JPEG2000 ==== 2D and 3D at up to 4K resolution Bit Rate: 50–250 Mbit/s (500 Mbit/s for frame rates above 30 fps) Speed: Faster than real-time processing when using optional render nodes ==== MPEG2 ==== I-Only or Long GOP 1080p up to 80 Mbit/s ==== H264 ==== 1080p up to 50 Mbit/s ==== VC1 ==== DCP wrapping only (no transcode)
Naive Bayes classifier
In statistics, naive (sometimes simple or idiot's) Bayes classifiers are a family of "probabilistic classifiers" which assume that the features are conditionally independent, given the target class. In other words, a naive Bayes model assumes the information about the class provided by each variable is unrelated to the information from the others, with no information shared between the predictors. The highly unrealistic nature of this assumption, called the naive independence assumption, is what gives the classifier its name. These classifiers are some of the simplest Bayesian network models. Naive Bayes classifiers generally perform worse than more advanced models like logistic regressions, especially at quantifying uncertainty (with naive Bayes models often producing wildly overconfident probabilities). However, they are highly scalable, requiring only one parameter for each feature or predictor in a learning problem. Maximum-likelihood training can be done by evaluating a closed-form expression (simply by counting observations in each group), rather than the expensive iterative approximation algorithms required by most other models. Despite the use of Bayes' theorem in the classifier's decision rule, naive Bayes is not (necessarily) a Bayesian method, and naive Bayes models can be fit to data using either Bayesian or frequentist methods. == Introduction == Naive Bayes is a simple technique for constructing classifiers: models that assign class labels to problem instances, represented as vectors of feature values, where the class labels are drawn from some finite set. There is not a single algorithm for training such classifiers, but a family of algorithms based on a common principle: all naive Bayes classifiers assume that the value of a particular feature is independent of the value of any other feature, given the class variable. For example, a fruit may be considered to be an apple if it is red, round, and about 10 cm in diameter. A naive Bayes classifier considers each of these features to contribute independently to the probability that this fruit is an apple, regardless of any possible correlations between the color, roundness, and diameter features. In many practical applications, parameter estimation for naive Bayes models uses the method of maximum likelihood; in other words, one can work with the naive Bayes model without accepting Bayesian probability or using any Bayesian methods. Despite their naive design and apparently oversimplified assumptions, naive Bayes classifiers have worked quite well in many complex real-world situations. In 2004, an analysis of the Bayesian classification problem showed that there are sound theoretical reasons for the apparently implausible efficacy of naive Bayes classifiers. Still, a comprehensive comparison with other classification algorithms in 2006 showed that Bayes classification is outperformed by other approaches, such as boosted trees or random forests. An advantage of naive Bayes is that it only requires a small amount of training data to estimate the parameters necessary for classification. == Probabilistic model == Abstractly, naive Bayes is a conditional probability model: it assigns probabilities p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} for each of the K possible outcomes or classes C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} given a problem instance to be classified, represented by a vector x = ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} encoding some n features (independent variables). The problem with the above formulation is that if the number of features n is large or if a feature can take on a large number of values, then basing such a model on probability tables is infeasible. The model must therefore be reformulated to make it more tractable. Using Bayes' theorem, the conditional probability can be decomposed as: p ( C k ∣ x ) = p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid \mathbf {x} )={\frac {p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})}{p(\mathbf {x} )}}\,} In plain English, using Bayesian probability terminology, the above equation can be written as posterior = prior × likelihood evidence {\displaystyle {\text{posterior}}={\frac {{\text{prior}}\times {\text{likelihood}}}{\text{evidence}}}\,} In practice, there is interest only in the numerator of that fraction, because the denominator does not depend on C {\displaystyle C} and the values of the features x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are given, so that the denominator is effectively constant. The numerator is equivalent to the joint probability model p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\,} which can be rewritten as follows, using the chain rule for repeated applications of the definition of conditional probability: p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( x 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 3 , … , x n , C k ) = ⋯ = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) ⋯ p ( x n − 1 ∣ x n , C k ) p ( x n ∣ C k ) p ( C k ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})&=p(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=\cdots \\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\cdots p(x_{n-1}\mid x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{n}\mid C_{k})\ p(C_{k})\\\end{aligned}}} Now the "naive" conditional independence assumptions come into play: assume that all features in x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } are mutually independent, conditional on the category C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} . Under this assumption, p ( x i ∣ x i + 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle p(x_{i}\mid x_{i+1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})=p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,.} Thus, the joint model can be expressed as p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) ∝ p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( C k ) p ( x 1 ∣ C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ C k ) p ( x 3 ∣ C k ) ⋯ = p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\varpropto \ &p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\\&=p(C_{k})\ p(x_{1}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{3}\mid C_{k})\ \cdots \\&=p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,,\end{aligned}}} where ∝ {\displaystyle \varpropto } denotes proportionality since the denominator p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} is omitted. This means that under the above independence assumptions, the conditional distribution over the class variable C {\displaystyle C} is: p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = 1 Z p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})={\frac {1}{Z}}\ p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})} where the evidence Z = p ( x ) = ∑ k p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle Z=p(\mathbf {x} )=\sum _{k}p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})} is a scaling factor dependent only on x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , that is, a constant if the values of the feature variables are known. Often, it is only necessary to discriminate between classes. In that case, the scaling factor is irrelevant, and it is sufficient to calculate the log-probability up to a factor: ln p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ln p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln p ( x i ∣ C k ) − ln Z ⏟ irrelevant {\displaystyle \ln p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})=\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\underbrace {-\ln Z} _{\text{irrelevant}}} The scaling factor is irrelevant, since discrimination subtracts it away: ln p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) p ( C l ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ( ln p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln p ( x i ∣ C k ) ) − ( ln p ( C l ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln p ( x i ∣ C l ) ) {\displaystyle \ln {\frac {p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}{p(C_{l}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}}=\left(\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\right)-\left(\ln p(C_{l})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{l})\right)} There are two benefits of using log-probability. One is that it allows an interpretation in information theory, where log-probabilities are units of information in nats. Another is that it avoids arithmetic underflow. === Constructing a classifier from the probability model === The discussion so far has derived the independent feature model, that is, the naive Bayes probability model. The naive Bayes classifier combines this model with a decision rule. One common rule is to pick the hypothesis that is most probable so as to minimize the probability of misclassification; this is known as the maximum a posteriori or MAP decision rule. The corresponding classifier, a Bayes classifier, is the function that assigns a class label y ^ = C k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=C_{k}} for some k as follows: y ^ = argmax k ∈ { 1 , … , K } p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\underset {k\in \{1,\ldots ,K\}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(C_{k})\displays