The ACM SIGEVO is a Special Interest Group of the Association of Computing Machinery for members of that organization who are practitioners, academics, students or others with interests in evolutionary computation and related algorithms. == History == ACM SIGEVO was founded in 2005 when the International Society for Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (ISGEC) became an ACM Special Interest Group under its present title. The ISGEC had been formed in 1999 by the merger of the Genetic Programming conference organization with the International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (ICGA) leading to the first Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO). == Membership == Members of this SIG pay a small fee in addition to the ACM membership fee. In return they have access to a quarterly online newsletter, but more importantly can obtain reduced registration rates at the two conferences organised by ACM SIGEVO: GECCO and the Foundations of Genetic Algorithms conference (FOGA). They can also access material on evolutionary computation and related topics in the ACM Digital Library. In addition they can subscribe to email mailing lists in order to keep informed about news over time. For students, ACM SIGEVO sponsors Travel Awards for attendance at the GECCO Conference and FOGA (the Foundations of Genetic Algorithms conference). ACM SIGEVO also sponsors a Graduate Student Workshop. ACM also sponsors Awards to be competed for by attendees at the conferences it organises. == Conferences == ACM SIGEVO organises two major conferences in the field of evolutionary computation. The Genetic and Evolutionary Conference (GECCO) is held annually, while the Foundations of Genetic Algorithms conference (FOGA) is held biennially. === GECCO === The first GECCO conference was held prior to the formation of ACM SIGEVO but since 2005 (see History above) it has been organised annually by ACM SIGEVO. The latest (2025) was held in Málaga, Spain. The next (2026) will be held in San José, Costa Rica. === FOGA === Foundations of Genetic Algorithms (FOGA) is a biennial peer-reviewed research conference focusing on the theoretical principles underlying genetic algorithms, other evolutionary algorithms and related heuristics. It is organized by ACM SIGEVO. Its relevance to the computer science research community has been reflected in an A-rating in the CORE computer science conference assessment system. The Foundations of Genetic Algorithms (FOGA) conference originated as a workshop in 1990 in order to create an opportunity for researchers on genetic algorithms and related areas of evolutionary computation to focus on the theoretical principles underlying their field. From the start its multi-day duration made it comparable to conferences in the field, and since 2015 its proceedings have used conference rather than workshop in their titles. In 2005 ACM SIGEVO the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation was formed and every FOGA conference since then has been supported by SIGEVO. The table below shows FOGA conferences by year, location, websites (where available) and publisher of proceedings. A citation follows the reference to the publisher giving the full details of each FOGA proceedings. Papers accepted at recent conferences have been presented as digital or print posters in poster sessions at the conference, before being published in written form in the conference proceedings. FOGA is comparable in its multi-day duration to other conferences on evolutionary computation such as CEC, GECCO and PPSN. The main difference is that FOGA focuses on the theoretical basis of evolutionary computation and related subjects. While the above conferences devote some time to theory they also cover a wide range of other topics including competitions and applications. This focus on theoretical computer science was reflected in the CORE computer science conference assessment exercise, where FOGA was given an A-ranking in the 2023 assessment. GECCO and PPSN also obtained A-rankings, but many other conferences in the field of evolutionary computation obtained lower rankings. This suggests that FOGA is a relevant conference in its field, comparable with others including the much larger CEC or GECCO. Keynote speakers at past conferences have been: == Awards == ACM SIGEVO sponsors a number of awards. === SIGEVO Outstanding Contribution Award === The SIGEVO Outstanding Contribution Award commenced in 2023, and these awards are designed to recognise distinctive contributions to the field of evolutionary computation when evaluated over a period of at least 15 years. As a result many recipients to date are notable academics or industrial practitioners, and include Anne Auger, Kalyanmoy Deb, Stephanie Forrest, Emma Hart and Hans-Paul Schwefel. === SIGEVO Dissertation Award === The SIGEVO Dissertation Award recognises thesis research in the field of evolutionary computation completed at least by the year prior to a GECCO conference. Theses are submitted and reviewed by a panel that selects one winner and a maximum of two honourable mentions. Awards will be made to the winner and any others at the next GECCO conference. === SIGEVO Chair Award === The SIGEVO Chair Award, established in 2016 is a lecture sponsored by ACM SIGEVO, to take place on the last day of the GECCO conference. It recognizes through the lectures that the lecturers are influential researchers in the field of evolutionary computation. The more recent lectures are available online. The 2024 Award winner was Una-May O'Reilly. === SIGEVO Impact Award === The SIGEVO Impact Award looks back to the GECCO conference ten years earlier and recognizes up to three papers a year which are considered by the current ACM SIGEVO Executive Committee to have had significant impact over the period since their first publication at the GECCO conference. An example (originally published in GECCO 2010) received this award in 2020. === GECCO Best Paper Award === The ACM SIGEVO sponsors awards for the best papers presented at the GECCO conference. Because GECCO conferences have very many parallel tracks there are multiple awards recognising presentations in the different tracks. At GECCO 2025 Best Paper Awards were presented across 12 tracks. === FOGA Best Paper Award === The ACM SIGEVO sponsors awards for the best papers presented at the FOGA conference. Because FOGA operates on a single track, it is easier to compare papers. Since 2019 this Award has been made (suggesting only four awards up to the latest conference in 2025). ACM SIGEVO records the 2019 award. === Humie Award === The Humies Awards are rewards for the best form of human-competitive results using evolutionary computation or related algorithms and published in the wider literature (they do not need to be published at a conference or in a journal sponsored by ACM SIGEVO or even the ACM.) They were established through a gift from John Koza and have been in operation from 2004 to the present. The link with ACM SIGEVO is that the winners of the competition (submissions are evaluated in advance) are presented with Humie Awards at GECCO conferences. The Humie Awards website provides full details for the rules and how to submit entries to the competition. == Journals == ACM SIGEVO sponsors the main journal covering evolutionary computation published by the ACM: ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning and Optimization. ACM SIGEVO refers to the preceding ISGEC organisation (see History above) as sponsoring two other important journals in the field: The Evolutionary Computation journal. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines. While these journals continue to be important in the field, the wording on the website of ACM SIGEVO suggests that ACM SIGEVO is not involved in their publication. == References and notes ==
Speech segmentation
Speech segmentation is the process of identifying the boundaries between words, syllables, or phonemes in spoken natural languages. The term applies both to the mental processes used by humans, and to artificial processes of natural language processing. In the field of automatic pronunciation assessment, the process of segmenting an utterance against expected word(s) is called forced alignment. Speech segmentation is a subfield of general speech perception and an important subproblem of the technologically focused field of speech recognition, and cannot be adequately solved in isolation. As in most natural language processing problems, one must take into account context, grammar, and semantics, and even so the result is often a probabilistic division (statistically based on likelihood) rather than a categorical one. Though it seems that coarticulation—a phenomenon which may happen between adjacent words just as easily as within a single word—presents the main challenge in speech segmentation across languages, some other problems and strategies employed in solving those problems can be seen in the following sections. This problem overlaps to some extent with the problem of text segmentation that occurs in some languages which are traditionally written without inter-word spaces, like Chinese and Japanese, compared to writing systems which indicate speech segmentation between words by a word divider, such as the space. However, even for those languages, text segmentation is often much easier than speech segmentation, because the written language usually has little interference between adjacent words, and often contains additional clues not present in speech (such as the use of Chinese characters for word stems in Japanese). == Lexical recognition == In natural languages, the meaning of a complex spoken sentence can be understood by decomposing it into smaller lexical segments (roughly, the words of the language), associating a meaning to each segment, and combining those meanings according to the grammar rules of the language. Though lexical recognition is not thought to be used by infants in their first year, due to their highly limited vocabularies, it is one of the major processes involved in speech segmentation for adults. Three main models of lexical recognition exist in current research: first, whole-word access, which argues that words have a whole-word representation in the lexicon; second, decomposition, which argues that morphologically complex words are broken down into their morphemes (roots, stems, inflections, etc.) and then interpreted and; third, the view that whole-word and decomposition models are both used, but that the whole-word model provides some computational advantages and is therefore dominant in lexical recognition. To give an example, in a whole-word model, the word "cats" might be stored and searched for by letter, first "c", then "ca", "cat", and finally "cats". The same word, in a decompositional model, would likely be stored under the root word "cat" and could be searched for after removing the "s" suffix. "Falling", similarly, would be stored as "fall" and suffixed with the "ing" inflection. Though proponents of the decompositional model recognize that a morpheme-by-morpheme analysis may require significantly more computation, they argue that the unpacking of morphological information is necessary for other processes (such as syntactic structure) which may occur parallel to lexical searches. As a whole, research into systems of human lexical recognition is limited due to little experimental evidence that fully discriminates between the three main models. In any case, lexical recognition likely contributes significantly to speech segmentation through the contextual clues it provides, given that it is a heavily probabilistic system—based on the statistical likelihood of certain words or constituents occurring together. For example, one can imagine a situation where a person might say "I bought my dog at a ____ shop" and the missing word's vowel is pronounced as in "net", "sweat", or "pet". While the probability of "netshop" is extremely low, since "netshop" isn't currently a compound or phrase in English, and "sweatshop" also seems contextually improbable, "pet shop" is a good fit because it is a common phrase and is also related to the word "dog". Moreover, an utterance can have different meanings depending on how it is split into words. A popular example, often quoted in the field, is the phrase "How to wreck a nice beach", which sounds very similar to "How to recognize speech". As this example shows, proper lexical segmentation depends on context and semantics which draws on the whole of human knowledge and experience, and would thus require advanced pattern recognition and artificial intelligence technologies to be implemented on a computer. Lexical recognition is of particular value in the field of computer speech recognition, since the ability to build and search a network of semantically connected ideas would greatly increase the effectiveness of speech-recognition software. Statistical models can be used to segment and align recorded speech to words or phones. Applications include automatic lip-synch timing for cartoon animation, follow-the-bouncing-ball video sub-titling, and linguistic research. Automatic segmentation and alignment software is commercially available. == Phonotactic cues == For most spoken languages, the boundaries between lexical units are difficult to identify; phonotactics are one answer to this issue. One might expect that the inter-word spaces used by many written languages like English or Spanish would correspond to pauses in their spoken version, but that is true only in very slow speech, when the speaker deliberately inserts those pauses. In normal speech, one typically finds many consecutive words being said with no pauses between them, and often the final sounds of one word blend smoothly or fuse with the initial sounds of the next word. The notion that speech is produced like writing, as a sequence of distinct vowels and consonants, may be a relic of alphabetic heritage for some language communities. In fact, the way vowels are produced depends on the surrounding consonants just as consonants are affected by surrounding vowels; this is called coarticulation. For example, in the word "kit", the [k] is farther forward than when we say 'caught'. But also, the vowel in "kick" is phonetically different from the vowel in "kit", though we normally do not hear this. In addition, there are language-specific changes which occur in casual speech which makes it quite different from spelling. For example, in English, the phrase "hit you" could often be more appropriately spelled "hitcha". From a decompositional perspective, in many cases, phonotactics play a part in letting speakers know where to draw word boundaries. In English, the word "strawberry" is perceived by speakers as consisting (phonetically) of two parts: "straw" and "berry". Other interpretations such as "stra" and "wberry" are inhibited by English phonotactics, which does not allow the cluster "wb" word-initially. Other such examples are "day/dream" and "mile/stone" which are unlikely to be interpreted as "da/ydream" or "mil/estone" due to the phonotactic probability or improbability of certain clusters. The sentence "Five women left", which could be phonetically transcribed as [faɪvwɪmɘnlɛft], is marked since neither /vw/ in /faɪvwɪmɘn/ nor /nl/ in /wɪmɘnlɛft/ are allowed as syllable onsets or codas in English phonotactics. These phonotactic cues often allow speakers to easily distinguish the boundaries in words. Vowel harmony in languages like Finnish can also serve to provide phonotactic cues. While the system does not allow front vowels and back vowels to exist together within one morpheme, compounds allow two morphemes to maintain their own vowel harmony while coexisting in a word. Therefore, in compounds such as "selkä/ongelma" ('back problem') where vowel harmony is distinct between two constituents in a compound, the boundary will be wherever the switch in harmony takes place—between the "ä" and the "ö" in this case. Still, there are instances where phonotactics may not aid in segmentation. Words with unclear clusters or uncontrasted vowel harmony as in "opinto/uudistus" ('student reform') do not offer phonotactic clues as to how they are segmented. From the perspective of the whole-word model, however, these words are thought be stored as full words, so the constituent parts would not necessarily be relevant to lexical recognition. == In infants and non-natives == Infants are one major focus of research in speech segmentation. Since infants have not yet acquired a lexicon capable of providing extensive contextual clues or probability-based word searches within their first year, as mentioned above, they must often rely primarily upon phonotactic and rhythmic cues (with prosody being the dominant cue), all
Aleph (ILP)
Aleph (A Learning Engine for Proposing Hypotheses) is an inductive logic programming system introduced by Ashwin Srinivasan in 2001. As of 2022 it is still one of the most widely used inductive logic programming systems. It is based on the earlier system Progol. == Learning task == The input to Aleph is background knowledge, specified as a logic program, a language bias in the form of mode declarations, as well as positive and negative examples specified as ground facts. As output it returns a logic program which, together with the background knowledge, entails all of the positive examples and none of the negative examples. == Basic algorithm == Starting with an empty hypothesis, Aleph proceeds as follows: It chooses a positive example to generalise; if none are left, it aborts and outputs the current hypothesis. Then it constructs the bottom clause, that is, the most specific clause that is allowed by the mode declarations and covers the example. It then searches for a generalisation of the bottom clause that scores better on the chosen metric. It then adds the new clause to the hypothesis program and removes all examples that are covered by the new clause. == Search algorithm == Aleph searches for clauses in a top-down manner, using the bottom clause constructed in the preceding step to bound the search from below. It searches the refinement graph in a breadth-first manner, with tunable parameters to bound the maximal clause size and proof depth. It scores each clause using one of 13 different evaluation metrics, as chosen in advance by the user.
Genetic programming
Genetic programming (GP) is an evolutionary algorithm, an artificial intelligence technique mimicking natural evolution, which operates on a population of programs. It applies the genetic operators selection according to a predefined fitness measure, mutation and crossover. The crossover operation involves swapping specified parts of selected pairs (parents) to produce new and different offspring that become part of the new generation of programs. Some programs not selected for reproduction are copied from the current generation to the new generation. Mutation involves substitution of some random part of a program with some other random part of a program. Then the selection and other operations are recursively applied to the new generation of programs. Typically, members of each new generation are on average more fit than the members of the previous generation, and the best-of-generation program is often better than the best-of-generation programs from previous generations. Termination of the evolution usually occurs when some individual program reaches a predefined proficiency or fitness level. It may and often does happen that a particular run of the algorithm results in premature convergence to some local maximum that is not a globally optimal or even good solution. Multiple runs (dozens to hundreds) are usually necessary to produce a very good result. It may also be necessary to have a large starting population size and variability of the individuals to avoid pathologies. == History == The first record of the proposal to evolve programs is probably that of Alan Turing in 1950 in "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". There was a gap of 25 years before the publication of John Holland's 'Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems' laid out the theoretical and empirical foundations of the science. In 1981, Richard Forsyth demonstrated the successful evolution of small programs, represented as trees, to perform classification of crime scene evidence for the UK Home Office. Although the idea of evolving programs, initially in the computer language Lisp, was current amongst John Holland's students, it was not until they organised the first Genetic Algorithms (GA) conference in Pittsburgh that Nichael Cramer published evolved programs in two specially designed languages, which included the first statement of modern "tree-based" genetic programming (that is, procedural languages organized in tree-based structures and operated on by suitably defined GA-operators). In 1988, John Koza (also a PhD student of John Holland) patented his invention of a GA for program evolution. This was followed by publication in the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-89. Koza followed this with 205 publications on "genetic programming", a term coined by David Goldberg, also a PhD student of John Holland. However, it is the series of 4 books by Koza, starting in 1992 with accompanying videos, that really established GP. Subsequently, there was an enormous expansion of the number of publications with the Genetic Programming Bibliography, surpassing 10,000 entries. In 2010, Koza listed 77 results where genetic programming was human competitive. The departure of GP from the rigid, fixed-length representations typical of early GA models was not entirely without precedent. Early work on variable-length representations laid the groundwork. One notable example is messy genetic algorithms, which introduced irregular, variable-length chromosomes to address building block disruption and positional bias in standard GAs. Another precursor was robot trajectory programming, where genome representations encoded program instructions for robotic movements—structures inherently variable in length. Even earlier, unfixed-length representations were proposed in a doctoral dissertation by Cavicchio, who explored adaptive search using simulated evolution. His work provided foundational ideas for flexible program structures. In 1996, Koza started the annual Genetic Programming conference, which was followed in 1998 by the annual EuroGP conference, and the first book in a GP series edited by Koza. 1998 also saw the first GP textbook. GP continued to flourish, leading to the first specialist GP journal and three years later (2003) the annual Genetic Programming Theory and Practice (GPTP) workshop was established by Rick Riolo. Genetic programming papers continue to be published at a diversity of conferences and associated journals. Today there are nineteen GP books including several for students. === Foundational work in GP === Early work that set the stage for current genetic programming research topics and applications is diverse, and includes software synthesis and repair, predictive modeling, data mining, financial modeling, soft sensors, design, and image processing. Applications in some areas, such as design, often make use of intermediate representations, such as Fred Gruau's cellular encoding. Industrial uptake has been significant in several areas including finance, the chemical industry, bioinformatics and the steel industry. == Methods == === Program representation === GP evolves computer programs, traditionally represented in memory as tree structures. Trees can be easily evaluated in a recursive manner. Every internal node has an operator function and every terminal node has an operand, making mathematical expressions easy to evolve and evaluate. Thus traditionally GP favors the use of programming languages that naturally embody tree structures (for example, Lisp; other functional programming languages are also suitable). Non-tree representations have been suggested and successfully implemented, such as linear genetic programming, which perhaps suits the more traditional imperative languages. The commercial GP software Discipulus uses automatic induction of binary machine code ("AIM") to achieve better performance. μGP uses directed multigraphs to generate programs that fully exploit the syntax of a given assembly language. Multi expression programming uses three-address code for encoding solutions. Other program representations on which significant research and development have been conducted include programs for stack-based virtual machines, and sequences of integers that are mapped to arbitrary programming languages via grammars. Cartesian genetic programming is another form of GP, which uses a graph representation instead of the usual tree based representation to encode computer programs. Most representations have structurally noneffective code (introns). Such non-coding genes may seem to be useless because they have no effect on the performance of any one individual. However, they alter the probabilities of generating different offspring under the variation operators, and thus alter the individual's variational properties. Experiments seem to show faster convergence when using program representations that allow such non-coding genes, compared to program representations that do not have any non-coding genes. Instantiations may have both trees with introns and those without; the latter are called canonical trees. Special canonical crossover operators are introduced that maintain the canonical structure of parents in their children. === Initialisation === The methods for creation of the initial population include: Grow creates the individuals sequentially. Every GP tree is created starting from the root, creating functional nodes with children as well as terminal nodes up to a certain depth. Full is similar to the Grow. The difference is that all brunches in a tree are of same predetermined depth. Ramped half-and-half creates a population consisting of m d − 1 {\displaystyle md-1} parts and a maximum depth of m d {\displaystyle md} for its trees. The first part has a maximum depth of 2, second of 3 and so on up to the m d − 1 {\displaystyle md-1} -th part with maximum depth m d {\displaystyle md} . Half of every part is created by Grow, while the other part is created by Full. === Selection === Selection is a process whereby certain individuals are selected from the current generation that would serve as parents for the next generation. The individuals are selected probabilistically such that the better performing individuals have a higher chance of getting selected. The most commonly used selection method in GP is tournament selection, although other methods such as fitness proportionate selection, lexicase selection, and others have been demonstrated to perform better for many GP problems. Elitism, which involves seeding the next generation with the best individual (or best n individuals) from the current generation, is a technique sometimes employed to avoid regression. === Crossover === In genetic programming two fit individuals are chosen from the population to be parents for one or two children. In tree genetic programming, these parents are represented as inverted lisp like trees, with their root nodes at the top. In subtree cro
Radial basis function kernel
In machine learning, the radial basis function kernel, or RBF kernel, is a popular kernel function used in various kernelized learning algorithms. In particular, it is commonly used in support vector machine classification. The RBF kernel on two samples x , x ′ ∈ R k {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} \in \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , represented as feature vectors in some input space, is defined as K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ( − ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 2 σ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}\right)} ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}} may be recognized as the squared Euclidean distance between the two feature vectors. σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a free parameter. An equivalent definition involves a parameter γ = 1 2 σ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \gamma ={\tfrac {1}{2\sigma ^{2}}}} : K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ( − γ ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp(-\gamma \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2})} Since the value of the RBF kernel decreases with distance and ranges between zero (in the infinite-distance limit) and one (when x = x'), it has a ready interpretation as a similarity measure. The feature space of the kernel has an infinite number of dimensions; for σ = 1 {\displaystyle \sigma =1} , its expansion using the multinomial theorem is: exp ( − 1 2 ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ( 2 2 x ⊤ x ′ − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ( x ⊤ x ′ ) exp ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) j j ! exp ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ∑ n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j exp ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! exp ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) x ′ 1 n 1 ⋯ x ′ k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)&=\exp \left({\frac {2}{2}}\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} -{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\exp \left(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} \right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} )^{j}}{j!}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }\quad \sum _{n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right){\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right){\frac {{x'}_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots {x'}_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\\[5pt]&=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \end{alignedat}}} φ ( x ) = exp ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) ( a ℓ 0 ( 0 ) , a 1 ( 1 ) , … , a ℓ 1 ( 1 ) , … , a 1 ( j ) , … , a ℓ j ( j ) , … ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\left(a_{\ell _{0}}^{(0)},a_{1}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{1}}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{1}^{(j)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{j}}^{(j)},\dots \right)} where ℓ j = ( k + j − 1 j ) {\displaystyle \ell _{j}={\tbinom {k+j-1}{j}}} , a ℓ ( j ) = x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! | n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j ∧ 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ ℓ j {\displaystyle a_{\ell }^{(j)}={\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\quad |\quad n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j\wedge 1\leq \ell \leq \ell _{j}} == Approximations == Because support vector machines and other models employing the kernel trick do not scale well to large numbers of training samples or large numbers of features in the input space, several approximations to the RBF kernel (and similar kernels) have been introduced. Typically, these take the form of a function z that maps a single vector to a vector of higher dimensionality, approximating the kernel: ⟨ z ( x ) , z ( x ′ ) ⟩ ≈ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ = K ( x , x ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle z(\mathbf {x} ),z(\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \approx \langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle =K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )} where φ {\displaystyle \textstyle \varphi } is the implicit mapping embedded in the RBF kernel. === Fourier random features === One way to construct such a z is to randomly sample from the Fourier transformation of the kernel φ ( x ) = 1 D [ cos ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , sin ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , … , cos ⟨ w D , x ⟩ , sin ⟨ w D , x ⟩ ] T {\displaystyle \varphi (x)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {D}}}[\cos \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\ldots ,\cos \langle w_{D},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{D},x\rangle ]^{T}} where w 1 , . . . , w D {\displaystyle w_{1},...,w_{D}} are independent samples from the normal distribution N ( 0 , σ − 2 I ) {\displaystyle N(0,\sigma ^{-2}I)} . Theorem: E [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = e ‖ x − y ‖ 2 / ( 2 σ 2 ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=e^{\|x-y\|^{2}/(2\sigma ^{2})}.} Proof: It suffices to prove the case of D = 1 {\displaystyle D=1} . Use the trigonometric identity cos ( a − b ) = cos ( a ) cos ( b ) + sin ( a ) sin ( b ) {\displaystyle \cos(a-b)=\cos(a)\cos(b)+\sin(a)\sin(b)} , the spherical symmetry of Gaussian distribution, then evaluate the integral ∫ − ∞ ∞ cos ( k x ) e − x 2 / 2 2 π d x = e − k 2 / 2 . {\displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\frac {\cos(kx)e^{-x^{2}/2}}{\sqrt {2\pi }}}dx=e^{-k^{2}/2}.} Theorem: Var [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = O ( D − 1 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=O(D^{-1})} . (Appendix A.2). === Nyström method === Another approach uses the Nyström method to approximate the eigendecomposition of the Gram matrix K, using only a random sample of the training set.
Hooked (app)
Hooked is a mobile application where users can write or read chat fiction, short pieces of fiction told in the format of text messages between fictional characters. The app was released in September 2015 and was developed by Telepathic Inc. == Features == Hooked is a freemium smartphone app that allows users to write or read short stories made up of text messages between characters. CEO Prerna Gupta described the app as "books for the Snapchat generation" or "Twitter for fiction." As of March 2019, the app had more than 40 million active users. The stories are written by a mix of professional authors and crowd-sourced participants. The most popular genres are suspense and horror. The stories usually lack literary elements like character arcs, are simply written and are intended to be suspenseful or addicting. Each piece of fiction on the app is approximately 1,000 to 1,300 words long and can be read in about five minutes. Some longer stories are told in "chapters" and a 32,000-word thriller called Dark Matter was released in 2018. The app provides a certain number of text messages for free, then delays the next text message by 15 minutes unless the user pays for a subscription. Prior to 2020, the app offered a three-day free trial and then required users to pay. According to Gupta, the app was intended to get the younger generation to read more without getting distracted. Most users of the app are between 13 and 24 years-old. == History == The Hooked app was first released in September 2015. Initially, Hooked featured about 200 stories that were written by professional authors selected by the app developers. The following year, Telepathic Inc. released Hooked 2.0, which allowed users of the app to create and share their own short stories. By mid-2016, the app had 700 stories written by professional authors and 9,000 stories written by users. Hooked had 1.8 million downloads by 2016 and 20 million download as of 2017, which generated $6.5 million in revenue. The response to Hooked prompted others to create similar text-message based short story apps, like Yarn and Tap. Sensor Tower reported that the Hooked app received 2.22 million downloads during the period from October 2016 to March 2017. Starting in 2020, longer stories divided into chapters debuted on the app. In March, the company launched Hooked TV, an app to showcase video pilots based on a number of scripts themed around the app's content. Out of 50 pilots, those that were most popular among users of the app and social media were expanded into original series as Hooked TV evolved into a streaming platform in the second half of 2021. == Background == The idea for Hooked was conceived when Gupta was working on writing a book of her own. Prerna Gupta and her husband Parag Chordia tested short stories with 15,000 people and found that readers were five times more likely to read a story to its end if the story was presented in a text message format. They created Telepathic Inc., which developed Hooked. According to Celebrity Secret when they first started out, the stories were basically as if two people were texting each other and some sort of drama unfolds. Some of their most popular initial stories were actually horror stories, where a mom gets a text from her daughter and something creepy is happening to her. Over time, they started to turn those into podcasts, which then led to making their own movies and TV shows. As of 2017, the Telepathic has raised $6 million in funding to develop and support the Hooked app. From the main website itself the Hooked investors include Sound Ventures, The Chernin Group, WME/Endeavor, MACRO, Greg Silverman, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Mariah Carey, Jamie Foxx, Joe Montana, Aasif Mandvi, Max Martin, Anjula Acharia, Savan Kotecha, Cyan Banister, Eric Ries, A Capital, SV Angel, Cowboy Ventures, Founders Fund and Greylock, among many others.
Alternating decision tree
An alternating decision tree (ADTree) is a machine learning method for classification. It generalizes decision trees and has connections to boosting. An ADTree consists of an alternation of decision nodes, which specify a predicate condition, and prediction nodes, which contain a single number. An instance is classified by an ADTree by following all paths for which all decision nodes are true, and summing any prediction nodes that are traversed. == History == ADTrees were introduced by Yoav Freund and Llew Mason. However, the algorithm as presented had several typographical errors. Clarifications and optimizations were later presented by Bernhard Pfahringer, Geoffrey Holmes and Richard Kirkby. Implementations are available in Weka and JBoost. == Motivation == Original boosting algorithms typically used either decision stumps or decision trees as weak hypotheses. As an example, boosting decision stumps creates a set of T {\displaystyle T} weighted decision stumps (where T {\displaystyle T} is the number of boosting iterations), which then vote on the final classification according to their weights. Individual decision stumps are weighted according to their ability to classify the data. Boosting a simple learner results in an unstructured set of T {\displaystyle T} hypotheses, making it difficult to infer correlations between attributes. Alternating decision trees introduce structure to the set of hypotheses by requiring that they build off a hypothesis that was produced in an earlier iteration. The resulting set of hypotheses can be visualized in a tree based on the relationship between a hypothesis and its "parent." Another important feature of boosted algorithms is that the data is given a different distribution at each iteration. Instances that are misclassified are given a larger weight while accurately classified instances are given reduced weight. == Alternating decision tree structure == An alternating decision tree consists of decision nodes and prediction nodes. Decision nodes specify a predicate condition. Prediction nodes contain a single number. ADTrees always have prediction nodes as both root and leaves. An instance is classified by an ADTree by following all paths for which all decision nodes are true and summing any prediction nodes that are traversed. This is different from binary classification trees such as CART (Classification and regression tree) or C4.5 in which an instance follows only one path through the tree. === Example === The following tree was constructed using JBoost on the spambase dataset (available from the UCI Machine Learning Repository). In this example, spam is coded as 1 and regular email is coded as −1. The following table contains part of the information for a single instance. The instance is scored by summing all of the prediction nodes through which it passes. In the case of the instance above, the score is calculated as The final score of 0.657 is positive, so the instance is classified as spam. The magnitude of the value is a measure of confidence in the prediction. The original authors list three potential levels of interpretation for the set of attributes identified by an ADTree: Individual nodes can be evaluated for their own predictive ability. Sets of nodes on the same path may be interpreted as having a joint effect The tree can be interpreted as a whole. Care must be taken when interpreting individual nodes as the scores reflect a re weighting of the data in each iteration. == Description of the algorithm == The inputs to the alternating decision tree algorithm are: A set of inputs ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x m , y m ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{m},y_{m})} where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is a vector of attributes and y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is either -1 or 1. Inputs are also called instances. A set of weights w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} corresponding to each instance. The fundamental element of the ADTree algorithm is the rule. A single rule consists of a precondition, a condition, and two scores. A condition is a predicate of the form "attribute