Mosaik Solutions

Mosaik Solutions (formerly American Roamer) was a company that specializes in wireless coverage data and wireless coverage maps, based in Memphis, Tennessee before being acquired by Ookla. The company collects and crowdsources carrier signal quality from major telecommunications providers or users who have its consumer or enterprise mobile application installed. The data is used to provide insights into places around the world without access to cellular coverage and the development of new coverage patterns, as well as to provide maps showing what provider offers the best service in an area. In 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), recognized Mosaik Solutions as the "industry standard" for the presence of wireless service at the census-block level. == History == In 2016, Mosaik purchased Sensorly, a free app developed to crowdsource cellular network performance service and provide coverage mapping for wireless networks worldwide. == Products and services == === MapELEMENTS === MapELEMENTS software is a visualization tool that allows users to analyze data from the largest cellular coverage database in the world. === CellMaps === CellMaps is an interactive mapping solution that allows companies to show their network coverage directly on their website through an iframe or API. In 2013 Mosaik launched an android app for CellMaps that provides data directly from carriers so that users can determine what carrier meets their needs in a given area. On the map you can overlay multiple carriers, zoom to street-view level, and drop a pin onto any given spot to get a breakdown of carrier service in that area. === Signal Insights App === Signal Insights is an SaaS platform service available for android users that measures and analyzes the customer's experience in cellular or Wi-Fi networks. Indoor mode allows a user to upload a building floor plan and then map and test specific points in the building for cellular or Wi-Fi connectivity. === Sensorly App === Sensorly is a free app that crowdsources cellular network performance to provide coverage mapping worldwide and mobile speed data to help consumers make informed decisions when choosing a cellular carrier. In February 2017, Sensorly launched Map Trip, a feature that allows users to map their routes and share with others their signal data at a particular point in real time. === TowerSource === TowerSource is a resource for locating cell towers and identifying ownership, availability, fiber routes, type and height. It was acquired by Mosaik Solutions in September 2014. === Network Validator === Network Validator is a SaaS solution designed for users to quickly determine whether global cellular networks exist - by country, operator and wireless technology. === CoverageRight === CoverageRight is composed of licensed GIS file datasets that identify the marketed coverage of wireless operators in the United States and worldwide. It enables users to perform spatial analyses, monitor competitive build-outs, analyze coverage trends and assemble roaming footprints. This data has been utilized by the FCC to analyze wireless coverage nationwide. === Network QoE === Network QoE is an enterprise platform that uses crowdsourced data from cellular devices to detect wireless network issues including 3G, 4G and wifi accessibility, network coverage holes and data performance issues. === Wireless Spectrum Report === In March 2017, Mosaik Solutions launched the Wireless Spectrum Report, a tabular dataset detailing facts about spectrum ownership and availability in the United States.

Agentive logic

Agentive logic (also called the logic of action or logic of agency) is the field of philosophical logic and logic in computer science that studies formal representations of agents, their actions, and their abilities. An agentive logic in the narrower sense is a formal system whose primitive operators express that an agent does something, can do something, or sees to it that something is the case. Agentive logics generalise modal logic by adding modalities indexed to agents and to actions. Typical examples include: STIT logics (from sees to it that) with operators of the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} meaning that agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; dynamic logics of action with program-like modalities [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } meaning, roughly, that after every (respectively, some) execution(s) of action α {\displaystyle \alpha } , φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; logics with explicit agentive operators such as "can do", "brings about", or "is able to ensure". Agentive logics are used in action theory in philosophy, in the semantics of natural language, in the theory of program verification, and in artificial intelligence, where they underpin formalisms for reasoning about actions, planning, and intelligent agents. == Terminology and scope == The adjective agentive derives from the Latin agens ("one who acts") and originally referred to the grammatical agent of a verb. In logical contexts it designates operators or predicates whose primary argument position is an agent rather than a proposition alone, for example A i φ {\displaystyle A_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} does φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ") or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} can bring about φ {\displaystyle \varphi } "). In contemporary literature, agentive logic is sometimes used narrowly for formal reconstructions of St. Anselm's modal account of facere ("to do"). More broadly, the term is used interchangeably with logic of action or logic of agency to cover a family of modal and dynamic logics designed to capture the structure of action and choice. == Historical background == === Medieval and early modern roots === Medieval logicians already explored analogies between modalities of action and alethic modalities such as possibility and necessity, for instance, in discussions of obligation and power. An influential early agentive analysis is due to St. Anselm (11th century), who treated "doing φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " as a kind of modal operator on propositions, anticipating later modal logics of agency. Modern reconstructions of Anselm's theory show that the resulting "agentive logic" can be modelled with neighbourhood semantics and satisfies a recognisable square of opposition. === Modern logic of action === Modern study of the logic of action began in the mid-20th century, parallel to developments in deontic logic and tense logic. Early systems were proposed by Georg Henrik von Wright, Stig Kanger, and others, often motivated by questions about norms and responsibility. From the 1960s onward, two largely independent but eventually converging traditions emerged: a branching-time tradition, culminating in STIT logics, emphasising agents' choices among possible futures; and dynamic logics of programs and actions, developed within computer science to reason about program execution. In the 1990s and 2000s, action logics were further developed in connection with knowledge representation, planning, and multi-agent systems in AI, and with dynamic and update semantics in linguistics. == Core ideas == Despite their diversity, most agentive logics share some general themes: Agents are treated as explicit indices of modal operators, as in [ i d o e s ] φ {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {does}}]\varphi } or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } . Actions are represented either implicitly, via changes between possible worlds along an accessibility relation, or explicitly, as terms denoting primitive and composite actions. Choice and ability are captured by modalities describing what an agent can ensure, usually relative to assumptions about the environment and other agents. Formal properties such as closure under composition, interaction between different agents, and connections to obligation (what an agent ought to do) and knowledge (what an agent knows how to do) are investigated. == STIT logics == STIT ("sees to it that") logics, originating in work by Nuel Belnap and collaborators, treat agency in a branching-time framework. A STIT model consists of a partially ordered set of moments with a tree-like structure, sets of histories (maximal branches through the tree), and for each agent at each moment, a partition of the histories through that moment representing the choices available to the agent. Intuitively, an agent's action at a moment determines which equivalence class (choice cell) of histories becomes actual; a formula [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} is true at a history–moment pair if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds on all histories in the choice cell corresponding to the agent's current action. Different STIT operators have been distinguished, notably: the Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , which requires only that the agent's choice guarantees φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ; and the deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , which additionally requires that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is not already historically necessary. STIT frameworks have been extended with group agency operators, temporal modalities, epistemic operators, and deontic operators to study responsibility, collective action, and obligations under indeterminism. == Dynamic logics of action == Dynamic logic was originally developed to reason about the behaviour of computer programs, treating program execution as a kind of action. In propositional dynamic logic (PDL), action terms α , β , … {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\dots } denote abstract programs or actions, and formulas of the form [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } express that all, respectively some, terminating executions of α {\displaystyle \alpha } lead to states where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. From the standpoint of agentive logic, dynamic logic provides: a language for building complex actions from primitives via sequencing, choice, and iteration (e.g., α ; β {\displaystyle \alpha ;\beta } , α ∪ β {\displaystyle \alpha \cup \beta } , α ∗ {\displaystyle \alpha ^{}} ); a Kripke semantics in which actions correspond to labelled accessibility relations; and proof systems (such as Hoare logic and weakest precondition calculi) for reasoning about the correctness of action sequences. Extensions such as concurrent dynamic logic add operators for parallel composition, allowing reasoning about interacting processes and concurrent actions. John-Jules Ch. Meyer and others have argued that dynamic logic is a natural base for logics of agents, by adding modalities for knowledge, belief, and ability on top of the action modalities. Dynamic logics have also been applied to normative reasoning, yielding dynamic deontic logics where actions are related to obligations and permissions, and to dynamic epistemic logics in which information-changing actions such as announcements are modelled as programs. == Situation calculus and other action formalisms == In artificial intelligence, reasoning about action and change is often based on first-order languages that explicitly represent situations, events, and fluents (time-varying properties). The best known is situation calculus, introduced by John McCarthy and developed extensively by Raymond Reiter. In such formalisms: action terms name primitive actions; a function symbol (often d o {\displaystyle {\mathsf {do}}} ) maps an action and a situation to a successor situation; and axioms describe which fluents hold in which situations and how actions change them. Reiter's successor state axioms give compact specifications of how each fluent changes under all actions, and precondition axioms specify when actions are possible. Related formalisms include the event calculus and fluent calculus, which provide alternative ways of representing events and their effects. While these systems are often first-order rather than modal, they are closely related to agentive logics: their action terms and transition structures can be seen as providing models for dynamic or STIT-style modalities, and conversely, dynamic logics can be used as abstract specification languages for such AI formalisms. == Ability, agency, and related modalities == Many agentive logics introduce explicit operators for ability or "can-do"

Stress majorization

Stress majorization is an optimization strategy used in multidimensional scaling (MDS) where, for a set of n {\displaystyle n} m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional data items, a configuration X {\displaystyle X} of n {\displaystyle n} points in r {\displaystyle r} ( ≪ m ) {\displaystyle (\ll m)} -dimensional space is sought that minimizes the so-called stress function σ ( X ) {\displaystyle \sigma (X)} . Usually r {\displaystyle r} is 2 {\displaystyle 2} or 3 {\displaystyle 3} , i.e. the ( n × r ) {\displaystyle (n\times r)} matrix X {\displaystyle X} lists points in 2 − {\displaystyle 2-} or 3 − {\displaystyle 3-} dimensional Euclidean space so that the result may be visualised (i.e. an MDS plot). The function σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a cost or loss function that measures the squared differences between ideal ( m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional) distances and actual distances in r-dimensional space. It is defined as: σ ( X ) = ∑ i < j ≤ n w i j ( d i j ( X ) − δ i j ) 2 {\displaystyle \sigma (X)=\sum _{i

Sparse PCA

Sparse principal component analysis (SPCA or sparse PCA) is a technique used in statistical analysis and, in particular, in the analysis of multivariate data sets. It extends the classic method of principal component analysis (PCA) for the reduction of dimensionality of data by introducing sparsity structures to the input variables. A particular disadvantage of ordinary PCA is that the principal components are usually linear combinations of all input variables. SPCA overcomes this disadvantage by finding components that are linear combinations of just a few input variables (SPCs). This means that some of the coefficients of the linear combinations defining the SPCs, called loadings, are equal to zero. The number of nonzero loadings is called the cardinality of the SPC. == Mathematical formulation == Consider a data matrix, X {\displaystyle X} , where each of the p {\displaystyle p} columns represent an input variable, and each of the n {\displaystyle n} rows represents an independent sample from data population. One assumes each column of X {\displaystyle X} has mean zero, otherwise one can subtract column-wise mean from each element of X {\displaystyle X} . Let Σ = 1 n − 1 X ⊤ X {\displaystyle \Sigma ={\frac {1}{n-1}}X^{\top }X} be the empirical covariance matrix of X {\displaystyle X} , which has dimension p × p {\displaystyle p\times p} . Given an integer k {\displaystyle k} with 1 ≤ k ≤ p {\displaystyle 1\leq k\leq p} , the sparse PCA problem can be formulated as maximizing the variance along a direction represented by vector v ∈ R p {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} while constraining its cardinality: max v T Σ v subject to ‖ v ‖ 2 = 1 ‖ v ‖ 0 ≤ k . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &v^{T}\Sigma v\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{2}=1\\&\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{0}\leq k.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 1 The first constraint specifies that v is a unit vector. In the second constraint, ‖ v ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \left\Vert v\right\Vert _{0}} represents the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} pseudo-norm of v, which is defined as the number of its non-zero components. So the second constraint specifies that the number of non-zero components in v is less than or equal to k, which is typically an integer that is much smaller than dimension p. The optimal value of Eq. 1 is known as the k-sparse largest eigenvalue. If one takes k=p, the problem reduces to the ordinary PCA, and the optimal value becomes the largest eigenvalue of covariance matrix Σ. After finding the optimal solution v, one deflates Σ to obtain a new matrix Σ 1 = Σ − ( v T Σ v ) v v T , {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}=\Sigma -(v^{T}\Sigma v)vv^{T},} and iterate this process to obtain further principal components. However, unlike PCA, sparse PCA cannot guarantee that different principal components are orthogonal. In order to achieve orthogonality, additional constraints must be enforced. The following equivalent definition is in matrix form. Let V {\displaystyle V} be a p×p symmetric matrix, one can rewrite the sparse PCA problem as max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 ‖ V ‖ 0 ≤ k 2 R a n k ( V ) = 1 , V ⪰ 0. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\Vert V\Vert _{0}\leq k^{2}\\&Rank(V)=1,V\succeq 0.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 2 Tr is the matrix trace, and ‖ V ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \Vert V\Vert _{0}} represents the non-zero elements in matrix V. The last line specifies that V has matrix rank one and is positive semidefinite. The last line means that one has V = v v T {\displaystyle V=vv^{T}} , so Eq. 2 is equivalent to Eq. 1. Moreover, the rank constraint in this formulation is actually redundant, and therefore sparse PCA can be cast as the following mixed-integer semidefinite program max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 | V i , i | ≤ z i , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , p } , | V i , j | ≤ 1 2 z i , ∀ i , j ∈ { 1 , . . . , p } : i ≠ j , V ⪰ 0 , z ∈ { 0 , 1 } p , ∑ i z i ≤ k {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\vert V_{i,i}\vert \leq z_{i},\forall i\in \{1,...,p\},\vert V_{i,j}\vert \leq {\frac {1}{2}}z_{i},\forall i,j\in \{1,...,p\}:i\neq j,\\&V\succeq 0,z\in \{0,1\}^{p},\sum _{i}z_{i}\leq k\end{aligned}}} Eq. 3 Because of the cardinality constraint, the maximization problem is hard to solve exactly, especially when dimension p is high. In fact, the sparse PCA problem in Eq. 1 is NP-hard in the strong sense. == Computational considerations == As most sparse problems, variable selection in SPCA is a computationally intractable non-convex NP-hard problem, therefore greedy sub-optimal algorithms are often employed to find solutions. Note also that SPCA introduces hyperparameters quantifying in what capacity large parameter values are penalized. These might need tuning to achieve satisfactory performance, thereby adding to the total computational cost. == Algorithms for SPCA == Several alternative approaches (of Eq. 1) have been proposed, including a regression framework, a penalized matrix decomposition framework, a convex relaxation/semidefinite programming framework, a generalized power method framework an alternating maximization framework forward-backward greedy search and exact methods using branch-and-bound techniques, a certifiably optimal branch-and-bound approach Bayesian formulation framework. A certifiably optimal mixed-integer semidefinite branch-and-cut approach The methodological and theoretical developments of Sparse PCA as well as its applications in scientific studies are recently reviewed in a survey paper. === Notes on Semidefinite Programming Relaxation === It has been proposed that sparse PCA can be approximated by semidefinite programming (SDP). If one drops the rank constraint and relaxes the cardinality constraint by a 1-norm convex constraint, one gets a semidefinite programming relaxation, which can be solved efficiently in polynomial time: max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 1 T | V | 1 ≤ k V ⪰ 0. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\mathbf {1} ^{T}|V|\mathbf {1} \leq k\\&V\succeq 0.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 3 In the second constraint, 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } is a p×1 vector of ones, and |V| is the matrix whose elements are the absolute values of the elements of V. The optimal solution V {\displaystyle V} to the relaxed problem Eq. 3 is not guaranteed to have rank one. In that case, V {\displaystyle V} can be truncated to retain only the dominant eigenvector. While the semidefinite program does not scale beyond n=300 covariates, it has been shown that a second-order cone relaxation of the semidefinite relaxation is almost as tight and successfully solves problems with n=1000s of covariates == Applications == === Financial Data Analysis === Suppose ordinary PCA is applied to a dataset where each input variable represents a different asset, it may generate principal components that are weighted combination of all the assets. In contrast, sparse PCA would produce principal components that are weighted combination of only a few input assets, so one can easily interpret its meaning. Furthermore, if one uses a trading strategy based on these principal components, fewer assets imply less transaction costs. === Biology === Consider a dataset where each input variable corresponds to a specific gene. Sparse PCA can produce a principal component that involves only a few genes, so researchers can focus on these specific genes for further analysis. === High-dimensional Hypothesis Testing === Contemporary datasets often have the number of input variables ( p {\displaystyle p} ) comparable with or even much larger than the number of samples ( n {\displaystyle n} ). It has been shown that if p / n {\displaystyle p/n} does not converge to zero, the classical PCA is not consistent. In other words, if we let k = p {\displaystyle k=p} in Eq. 1, then the optimal value does not converge to the largest eigenvalue of data population when the sample size n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\rightarrow \infty } , and the optimal solution does not converge to the direction of maximum variance. But sparse PCA can retain consistency even if p ≫ n . {\displaystyle p\gg n.} The k-sparse largest eigenvalue (the optimal value of Eq. 1) can be used to discriminate an isometric model, where every direction has the same variance, from a spiked covariance model in high-dimensional setting. Consider a hypothesis test where the null hypothesis specifies that data X {\displaystyle X} are generated from a multivariate normal distribution with mean 0 and covariance equal to an identity matrix, and the alternative hypothesis specifies that data X {\displaystyle X} is generated from a spiked model with signal strength θ {\displaystyle \theta } : H 0 : X ∼ N ( 0 , I p ) , H 1 : X ∼ N ( 0 , I p + θ v v T ) , {\displaystyle H_{0}:X\sim N(0,I_{p}),\quad H_{1}:X\sim N(0,I_{p}+\theta vv^{T}),} where v ∈ R p {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}

Log-linear model

A log-linear model is a mathematical model that takes the form of a function whose logarithm equals a linear combination of the parameters of the model, which makes it possible to apply (possibly multivariate) linear regression. That is, it has the general form exp ⁡ ( c + ∑ i w i f i ( X ) ) {\displaystyle \exp \left(c+\sum _{i}w_{i}f_{i}(X)\right)} , in which the fi(X) are quantities that are functions of the variable X, in general a vector of values, while c and the wi stand for the model parameters. The term may specifically be used for: A log-linear plot or graph, which is a type of semi-log plot. Poisson regression for contingency tables, a type of generalized linear model. The specific applications of log-linear models are where the output quantity lies in the range 0 to ∞, for values of the independent variables X, or more immediately, the transformed quantities fi(X) in the range −∞ to +∞. This may be contrasted to logistic models, similar to the logistic function, for which the output quantity lies in the range 0 to 1. Thus the contexts where these models are useful or realistic often depends on the range of the values being modelled.

Brill tagger

The Brill tagger is an inductive method for part-of-speech tagging. It was described and invented by Eric Brill in his 1993 PhD thesis. It can be summarized as an "error-driven transformation-based tagger". It is: a form of supervised learning, which aims to minimize error; and, a transformation-based process, in the sense that a tag is assigned to each word and changed using a set of predefined rules. In the transformation process, if the word is known, it first assigns the most frequent tag, or if the word is unknown, it naively assigns the tag "noun" to it. High accuracy is eventually achieved by applying these rules iteratively and changing the incorrect tags. This approach ensures that valuable information such as the morphosyntactic construction of words is employed in an automatic tagging process. == Algorithm == The algorithm starts with initialization, which is the assignment of tags based on their probability for each word (for example, "dog" is more often a noun than a verb). Then "patches" are determined via rules that correct (probable) tagging errors made in the initialization phase: Initialization: Known words (in vocabulary): assigning the most frequent tag associated to a form of the word Unknown word == Rules and processing == The input text is first tokenized, or broken into words. Typically in natural language processing, contractions such as "'s", "n't", and the like are considered separate word tokens, as are punctuation marks. A dictionary and some morphological rules then provide an initial tag for each word token. For example, a simple lookup would reveal that "dog" may be a noun or a verb (the most frequent tag is simply chosen), while an unknown word will be assigned some tag(s) based on capitalization, various prefix or suffix strings, etc. (such morphological analyses, which Brill calls Lexical Rules, may vary between implementations). After all word tokens have (provisional) tags, contextual rules apply iteratively, to correct the tags by examining small amounts of context. This is where the Brill method differs from other part of speech tagging methods such as those using Hidden Markov Models. Rules are reapplied repeatedly, until a threshold is reached, or no more rules can apply. Brill rules are of the general form: tag1 → tag2 IF Condition where the Condition tests the preceding and/or following word tokens, or their tags (the notation for such rules differs between implementations). For example, in Brill's notation: IN NN WDPREVTAG DT while would change the tag of a word from IN (preposition) to NN (common noun), if the preceding word's tag is DT (determiner) and the word itself is "while". This covers cases like "all the while" or "in a while", where "while" should be tagged as a noun rather than its more common use as a conjunction (many rules are more general). Rules should only operate if the tag being changed is also known to be permissible, for the word in question or in principle (for example, most adjectives in English can also be used as nouns). Rules of this kind can be implemented by simple Finite-state machines. See Part of speech tagging for more general information including descriptions of the Penn Treebank and other sets of tags. Typical Brill taggers use a few hundred rules, which may be developed by linguistic intuition or by machine learning on a pre-tagged corpus. == Code == Brill's code pages at Johns Hopkins University are no longer on the web. An archived version of a mirror of the Brill tagger at its latest version as it was available at Plymouth Tech can be found on Archive.org. The software uses the MIT License.

Unique negative dimension

Unique negative dimension (UND) is a complexity measure for the model of learning from positive examples. The unique negative dimension of a class C {\displaystyle C} of concepts is the size of the maximum subclass D ⊆ C {\displaystyle D\subseteq C} such that for every concept c ∈ D {\displaystyle c\in D} , we have ∩ ( D ∖ { c } ) ∖ c {\displaystyle \cap (D\setminus \{c\})\setminus c} is nonempty. This concept was originally proposed by M. Gereb-Graus in "Complexity of learning from one-side examples", Technical Report TR-20-89, Harvard University Division of Engineering and Applied Science, 1989.