AI Face Verification Video

AI Face Verification Video — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Taimi

  Taimi ( TAY-mee) is a dating app that caters to the LGBTQI+ community. The network matches its registered users based on their selected preferences and location. Originally an online dating service for gay men, by 2022 Taimi had become an app for all members of the LGBTQI+ community. It operates in more than 138 countries, including the US, UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Central and South America, Ukraine, and other European and Asian countries. Taimi runs on iOS and Android. The mobile app has a free and subscription-based premium version and offers a number of services for communication, including live streaming, chatting, and video calling. There is also an active blog that regularly posts articles and news about events of interest to the LGBTQ+ community. The application does not provide for non-Google e-mail log option, either phone number or Facebook account, during the registration process. The data controller for the non EU/UK users is based in a company, called Social Impact Inc., with its registered address at 1180 North Town Center Drive Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89144, United States of America. == History == Taimi was launched in 2017 by Social Impact, Inc. in Las Vegas. Its founder, Alex Pasykov, originally called the app "Tame Me," a name that gradually morphed into Taimi. Over time, Taimi expanded into other countries, and expanding its reach to the LGBTQ+ community, so that, by 2022, it was fully inclusive of the entire queer community. In November 2020 the app was redesigned, with a new interface, branding, and logo. As of 2024, there are over 25 million registered users of Taimi worldwide. Pasykov states that he is an ally of the LGBTQ+ community and that he is focused on, among other things, partnering with NGOs to fight Homophobia and "regressive policies and laws" that negatively impact the community. == Features == Users register on the app and complete a profile, including personal information and preferences for compatibility, dating style, and relationship goals. An algorithm then finds and presents recommendations that a user accepts or rejects. Users are then free to chat via text or video with people they have connected with. Safety and security features include a two-step authentication process and an automated account verification along with a clear reporting system when breaches or policy violations occur. User responses to new features and policies drive changes and modifications that are made to all aspects of the site. == Partnerships and Collaborations == Taimi has a long history of collaborations and partnerships in Pride events, both in the US and abroad, including fund-raising efforts. Taimi has partnered with Rakuten Viber to create a bot focused on educating its members on key LGBTQ+ topics and to allow queer Viber users to connect. In 2023, Taimi collaborated with the Known Agency in an "America the Beautiful" campaign to shine a spotlight on current anti-LGBTQ+ policies and laws in a number of US states, and to counter these by highlighting the values and freedoms upon which America was founded. The campaign was nominated for The Drum Awards in the category "OOH For Good" and honored with the ANA Multicultural Excellence Award. Taimi also partnered with Goodparts, a queer-owned and operated retailer, in a "Body Beautiful" campaign focused on love and acceptance of all body types. In this campaign, well-known LGBTQ+ artists are providing artwork for Goodpart's product packaging. From October 31 to December 13, 2023, Taimi showed the "Taimi Moments" video, created in collaboration with Raygun Agency, on large screens between performances of LGBTQ+ artists Doja Cat, Ice Spice, and Doechii on their Scarlet Tour. In spring 2024, Taimi launched Queer Paradise, a series of live events in Southern California to celebrate diversity, sexual exploration, and dating fluidity. Each event in the series was curated to give the full spectrum of groups within the LGBTQ+ community a space to express their authentic selves. Taimi's partners for Queer Paradise include Hawtmess Productions, Eden Entertainment Group, Hump Events, Girls Gays & Theys, Damn Good Dyke Nights, and Gaybors Agency. In summer 2024, with support from GLAAD, Taimi has updated features and self-expression tools to better serve the LGBTQ+ people seeking connection in the app. Taimi allowed members to select multiple sexualities, unified the list of sexualities across all genders, added more pronoun options, and created a more inclusive and improved list of subcategories for non-binary users. Also, in summer 2024, Taimi has partnered with gender-affirming underwear brand Urbody to release a capsule collection. Focused on gender inclusivity and sexual fluidity, the capsule collection includes a range of underwear and compression tops intended to promote "joy, self-love and empowerment."

  Read more →
• 

  NOMINATE (scaling method)

  NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress

  Read more →
• 

  Random forest

  Random forests or random decision forests is an ensemble learning method for classification, regression and other tasks that works by creating a multitude of decision trees during training. For classification tasks, the output of the random forest is the class selected by most trees. For regression tasks, the output is the average of the predictions of the trees. Random forests correct for decision trees' habit of overfitting to their training set. The first algorithm for random decision forests was created in 1995 by Tin Kam Ho using the random subspace method, which, in Ho's formulation, is a way to implement the "stochastic discrimination" approach to classification proposed by Eugene Kleinberg. An extension of the algorithm was developed by Leo Breiman and Adele Cutler, who registered "Random Forests" as a trademark in 2006 (as of 2019, owned by Minitab, Inc.). The extension combines Breiman's "bagging" idea and random selection of features, introduced first by Ho and later independently by Amit and Geman in order to construct a collection of decision trees with controlled variance. == History == The general method of random decision forests was first proposed by Salzberg and Heath in 1993, with a method that used a randomized decision tree algorithm to create multiple trees and then combine them using majority voting. This idea was developed further by Ho in 1995. Ho established that forests of trees splitting with oblique hyperplanes can gain accuracy as they grow without suffering from overtraining, as long as the forests are randomly restricted to be sensitive to only selected feature dimensions. A subsequent work along the same lines concluded that other splitting methods behave similarly, as long as they are randomly forced to be insensitive to some feature dimensions. This observation that a more complex classifier (a larger forest) gets more accurate nearly monotonically is in sharp contrast to the common belief that the complexity of a classifier can only grow to a certain level of accuracy before being hurt by overfitting. The explanation of the forest method's resistance to overtraining can be found in Kleinberg's theory of stochastic discrimination. The early development of Breiman's notion of random forests was influenced by the work of Amit and Geman who introduced the idea of searching over a random subset of the available decisions when splitting a node, in the context of growing a single tree. The idea of random subspace selection from Ho was also influential in the design of random forests. This method grows a forest of trees, and introduces variation among the trees by projecting the training data into a randomly chosen subspace before fitting each tree or each node. Finally, the idea of randomized node optimization, where the decision at each node is selected by a randomized procedure, rather than a deterministic optimization was first introduced by Thomas G. Dietterich. The proper introduction of random forests was made in a paper by Leo Breiman, that has become one of the world's most cited papers. This paper describes a method of building a forest of uncorrelated trees using a CART like procedure, combined with randomized node optimization and bagging. In addition, this paper combines several ingredients, some previously known and some novel, which form the basis of the modern practice of random forests, in particular: Using out-of-bag error as an estimate of the generalization error. Measuring variable importance through permutation. The report also offers the first theoretical result for random forests in the form of a bound on the generalization error which depends on the strength of the trees in the forest and their correlation. == Algorithm == === Preliminaries: decision tree learning === Decision trees are a popular method for various machine learning tasks. Tree learning is almost "an off-the-shelf procedure for data mining", say Hastie et al., "because it is invariant under scaling and various other transformations of feature values, is robust to inclusion of irrelevant features, and produces inspectable models. However, they are seldom accurate". In particular, trees that are grown very deep tend to learn highly irregular patterns: they overfit their training sets, i.e. have low bias, but very high variance. Random forests are a way of averaging multiple deep decision trees, trained on different parts of the same training set, with the goal of reducing the variance. This comes at the expense of a small increase in the bias and some loss of interpretability, but generally greatly boosts the performance in the final model. === Bagging === The training algorithm for random forests applies the general technique of bootstrap aggregating, or bagging, to tree learners. Given a training set X = x1, ..., xn with responses Y = y1, ..., yn, bagging repeatedly (B times) selects a random sample with replacement of the training set and fits trees to these samples: After training, predictions for unseen samples x' can be made by averaging the predictions from all the individual regression trees on x': f ^ = 1 B ∑ b = 1 B f b ( x ′ ) {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}={\frac {1}{B}}\sum _{b=1}^{B}f_{b}(x')} or by taking the plurality vote in the case of classification trees. This bootstrapping procedure leads to better model performance because it decreases the variance of the model, without increasing the bias. This means that while the predictions of a single tree are highly sensitive to noise in its training set, the average of many trees is not, as long as the trees are not correlated. Simply training many trees on a single training set would give strongly correlated trees (or even the same tree many times, if the training algorithm is deterministic); bootstrap sampling is a way of de-correlating the trees by showing them different training sets. Additionally, an estimate of the uncertainty of the prediction can be made as the standard deviation of the predictions from all the individual regression trees on x′: σ = ∑ b = 1 B ( f b ( x ′ ) − f ^ ) 2 B − 1 . {\displaystyle \sigma ={\sqrt {\frac {\sum _{b=1}^{B}(f_{b}(x')-{\hat {f}})^{2}}{B-1}}}.} The number B of samples (equivalently, of trees) is a free parameter. Typically, a few hundred to several thousand trees are used, depending on the size and nature of the training set. B can be optimized using cross-validation, or by observing the out-of-bag error: the mean prediction error on each training sample xi, using only the trees that did not have xi in their bootstrap sample. The training and test error tend to level off after some number of trees have been fit. === From bagging to random forests === The above procedure describes the original bagging algorithm for trees. Random forests also include another type of bagging scheme: they use a modified tree learning algorithm that selects, at each candidate split in the learning process, a random subset of the features. This process is sometimes called "feature bagging". The reason for doing this is the correlation of the trees in an ordinary bootstrap sample: if one or a few features are very strong predictors for the response variable (target output), these features will be selected in many of the B trees, causing them to become correlated. An analysis of how bagging and random subspace projection contribute to accuracy gains under different conditions is given by Ho. Typically, for a classification problem with p {\displaystyle p} features, p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {p}}} (rounded down) features are used in each split. For regression problems the inventors recommend p / 3 {\displaystyle p/3} (rounded down) with a minimum node size of 5 as the default. In practice, the best values for these parameters should be tuned on a case-to-case basis for every problem. === ExtraTrees === Adding one further step of randomization yields extremely randomized trees, or ExtraTrees. As with ordinary random forests, they are an ensemble of individual trees, but there are two main differences: (1) each tree is trained using the whole learning sample (rather than a bootstrap sample), and (2) the top-down splitting is randomized: for each feature under consideration, a number of random cut-points are selected, instead of computing the locally optimal cut-point (based on, e.g., information gain or the Gini impurity). The values are chosen from a uniform distribution within the feature's empirical range (in the tree's training set). Then, of all the randomly chosen splits, the split that yields the highest score is chosen to split the node. Similar to ordinary random forests, the number of randomly selected features to be considered at each node can be specified. Default values for this parameter are p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {p}}} for classification and p {\displaystyle p} for regression, where p {\displaystyle p} is the number of features in the model. === Random forests for high-dimensional data === The basic random forest procedure may

  Read more →
• 

  Robust principal component analysis

  Robust Principal Component Analysis (RPCA) is a modification of the widely used statistical procedure of principal component analysis (PCA) which works well with respect to grossly corrupted observations. A number of different approaches exist for Robust PCA, including an idealized version of Robust PCA, which aims to recover a low-rank matrix L0 from highly corrupted measurements M = L0 +S0. This decomposition in low-rank and sparse matrices can be achieved by techniques such as Principal Component Pursuit method (PCP), Stable PCP, Quantized PCP, Block based PCP, and Local PCP. Then, optimization methods are used such as the Augmented Lagrange Multiplier Method (ALM), Alternating Direction Method (ADM), Fast Alternating Minimization (FAM), Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares (IRLS ) or alternating projections (AP). == Algorithms == === Non-convex method === The 2014 guaranteed algorithm for the robust PCA problem (with the input matrix being M = L + S {\displaystyle M=L+S} ) is an alternating minimization type algorithm. The computational complexity is O ( m n r 2 log ⁡ 1 ϵ ) {\displaystyle O\left(mnr^{2}\log {\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)} where the input is the superposition of a low-rank (of rank r {\displaystyle r} ) and a sparse matrix of dimension m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} and ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is the desired accuracy of the recovered solution, i.e., ‖ L ^ − L ‖ F ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle \|{\widehat {L}}-L\|_{F}\leq \epsilon } where L {\displaystyle L} is the true low-rank component and L ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {L}}} is the estimated or recovered low-rank component. Intuitively, this algorithm performs projections of the residual onto the set of low-rank matrices (via the SVD operation) and sparse matrices (via entry-wise hard thresholding) in an alternating manner - that is, low-rank projection of the difference the input matrix and the sparse matrix obtained at a given iteration followed by sparse projection of the difference of the input matrix and the low-rank matrix obtained in the previous step, and iterating the two steps until convergence. This alternating projections algorithm is later improved by an accelerated version, coined AccAltProj. The acceleration is achieved by applying a tangent space projection before projecting the residue onto the set of low-rank matrices. This trick improves the computational complexity to O ( m n r log ⁡ 1 ϵ ) {\displaystyle O\left(mnr\log {\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)} with a much smaller constant in front while it maintains the theoretically guaranteed linear convergence. Another fast version of accelerated alternating projections algorithm is IRCUR. It uses the structure of CUR decomposition in alternating projections framework to dramatically reduces the computational complexity of RPCA to O ( max { m , n } r 2 log ⁡ ( m ) log ⁡ ( n ) log ⁡ 1 ϵ ) {\displaystyle O\left(\max\{m,n\}r^{2}\log(m)\log(n)\log {\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)} === Convex relaxation === This method consists of relaxing the rank constraint r a n k ( L ) {\displaystyle rank(L)} in the optimization problem to the nuclear norm ‖ L ‖ ∗ {\displaystyle \|L\|_{}} and the sparsity constraint ‖ S ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|S\|_{0}} to ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} -norm ‖ S ‖ 1 {\displaystyle \|S\|_{1}} . The resulting program can be solved using methods such as the method of Augmented Lagrange Multipliers. === Deep-learning augmented method === Some recent works propose RPCA algorithms with learnable/training parameters. Such a learnable/trainable algorithm can be unfolded as a deep neural network whose parameters can be learned via machine learning techniques from a given dataset or problem distribution. The learned algorithm will have superior performance on the corresponding problem distribution. == Applications == RPCA has many real life important applications particularly when the data under study can naturally be modeled as a low-rank plus a sparse contribution. Following examples are inspired by contemporary challenges in computer science, and depending on the applications, either the low-rank component or the sparse component could be the object of interest: === Video surveillance === Given a sequence of surveillance video frames, it is often required to identify the activities that stand out from the background. If we stack the video frames as columns of a matrix M, then the low-rank component L0 naturally corresponds to the stationary background and the sparse component S0 captures the moving objects in the foreground. === Face recognition === Images of a convex, Lambertian surface under varying illuminations span a low-dimensional subspace. This is one of the reasons for effectiveness of low-dimensional models for imagery data. In particular, it is easy to approximate images of a human's face by a low-dimensional subspace. To be able to correctly retrieve this subspace is crucial in many applications such as face recognition and alignment. It turns out that RPCA can be applied successfully to this problem to exactly recover the face.

  Read more →
• 

  View model

  A view model or viewpoints framework in systems engineering, software engineering, and enterprise engineering is a framework which defines a coherent set of views to be used in the construction of a system architecture, software architecture, or enterprise architecture. A view is a representation of the whole system from the perspective of a related set of concerns. Since the early 1990s there have been a number of efforts to prescribe approaches for describing and analyzing system architectures. A result of these efforts have been to define a set of views (or viewpoints). They are sometimes referred to as architecture frameworks or enterprise architecture frameworks, but are usually called "view models". Usually a view is a work product that presents specific architecture data for a given system. However, the same term is sometimes used to refer to a view definition, including the particular viewpoint and the corresponding guidance that defines each concrete view. The term view model is related to view definitions. == Overview == The purpose of views and viewpoints is to enable humans to comprehend very complex systems, to organize the elements of the problem and the solution around domains of expertise and to separate concerns. In the engineering of physically intensive systems, viewpoints often correspond to capabilities and responsibilities within the engineering organization. Most complex system specifications are so extensive that no single individual can fully comprehend all aspects of the specifications. Furthermore, we all have different interests in a given system and different reasons for examining the system's specifications. A business executive will ask different questions of a system make-up than would a system implementer. The concept of viewpoints framework, therefore, is to provide separate viewpoints into the specification of a given complex system in order to facilitate communication with the stakeholders. Each viewpoint satisfies an audience with interest in a particular set of aspects of the system. Each viewpoint may use a specific viewpoint language that optimizes the vocabulary and presentation for the audience of that viewpoint. Viewpoint modeling has become an effective approach for dealing with the inherent complexity of large distributed systems. Architecture description practices, as described in IEEE Std 1471-2000, utilize multiple views to address several areas of concerns, each one focusing on a specific aspect of the system. Examples of architecture frameworks using multiple views include Kruchten's "4+1" view model, the Zachman Framework, TOGAF, DoDAF, and RM-ODP. == History == In the 1970s, methods began to appear in software engineering for modeling with multiple views. Douglas T. Ross and K.E. Schoman in 1977 introduce the constructs context, viewpoint, and vantage point to organize the modeling process in systems requirements definition. According to Ross and Schoman, a viewpoint "makes clear what aspects are considered relevant to achieving ... the overall purpose [of the model]" and determines How do we look at [a subject being modelled]? As examples of viewpoints, the paper offers: Technical, Operational and Economic viewpoints. In 1992, Anthony Finkelstein and others published a very important paper on viewpoints. In that work: "A viewpoint can be thought of as a combination of the idea of an “actor”, “knowledge source”, “role” or “agent” in the development process and the idea of a “view” or “perspective” which an actor maintains." An important idea in this paper was to distinguish "a representation style, the scheme and notation by which the viewpoint expresses what it can see" and "a specification, the statements expressed in the viewpoint's style describing particular domains". Subsequent work, such as IEEE 1471, preserved this distinction by utilizing two separate terms: viewpoint and view, respectively. Since the early 1990s there have been a number of efforts to codify approaches for describing and analyzing system architectures. These are often termed architecture frameworks or sometimes viewpoint sets. Many of these have been funded by the United States Department of Defense, but some have sprung from international or national efforts in ISO or the IEEE. Among these, the IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems (IEEE Std 1471-2000) established useful definitions of view, viewpoint, stakeholder and concern and guidelines for documenting a system architecture through the use of multiple views by applying viewpoints to address stakeholder concerns. The advantage of multiple views is that hidden requirements and stakeholder disagreements can be discovered more readily. However, studies show that in practice, the added complexity of reconciling multiple views can undermine this advantage. IEEE 1471 (now ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description) prescribes the contents of architecture descriptions and describes their creation and use under a number of scenarios, including precedented and unprecedented design, evolutionary design, and capture of design of existing systems. In all of these scenarios the overall process is the same: identify stakeholders, elicit concerns, identify a set of viewpoints to be used, and then apply these viewpoint specifications to develop the set of views relevant to the system of interest. Rather than define a particular set of viewpoints, the standard provides uniform mechanisms and requirements for architects and organizations to define their own viewpoints. In 1996 the ISO Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) was published to provide a useful framework for describing the architecture and design of large-scale distributed systems. == View model topics == === View === A view of a system is a representation of the system from the perspective of a viewpoint. This viewpoint on a system involves a perspective focusing on specific concerns regarding the system, which suppresses details to provide a simplified model having only those elements related to the concerns of the viewpoint. For example, a security viewpoint focuses on security concerns and a security viewpoint model contains those elements that are related to security from a more general model of a system. A view allows a user to examine a portion of a particular interest area. For example, an Information View may present all functions, organizations, technology, etc. that use a particular piece of information, while the Organizational View may present all functions, technology, and information of concern to a particular organization. In the Zachman Framework views comprise a group of work products whose development requires a particular analytical and technical expertise because they focus on either the “what,” “how,” “who,” “where,” “when,” or “why” of the enterprise. For example, Functional View work products answer the question “how is the mission carried out?” They are most easily developed by experts in functional decomposition using process and activity modeling. They show the enterprise from the point of view of functions. They also may show organizational and information components, but only as they relate to functions. === Viewpoints === In systems engineering, a viewpoint is a partitioning or restriction of concerns in a system. Adoption of a viewpoint is usable so that issues in those aspects can be addressed separately. A good selection of viewpoints also partitions the design of the system into specific areas of expertise. Viewpoints provide the conventions, rules, and languages for constructing, presenting and analysing views. In ISO/IEC 42010:2007 (IEEE-Std-1471-2000) a viewpoint is a specification for an individual view. A view is a representation of a whole system from the perspective of a viewpoint. A view may consist of one or more architectural models. Each such architectural model is developed using the methods established by its associated architectural system, as well as for the system as a whole. === Modeling perspectives === Modeling perspectives is a set of different ways to represent pre-selected aspects of a system. Each perspective has a different focus, conceptualization, dedication and visualization of what the model is representing. In information systems, the traditional way to divide modeling perspectives is to distinguish the structural, functional and behavioral/processual perspectives. This together with rule, object, communication and actor and role perspectives is one way of classifying modeling approaches === Viewpoint model === In any given viewpoint, it is possible to make a model of the system that contains only the objects that are visible from that viewpoint, but also captures all of the objects, relationships and constraints that are present in the system and relevant to that viewpoint. Such a model is said to be a viewpoint model, or a view of the

  Read more →
• 

  Constructing skill trees

  Constructing skill trees (CST) is a hierarchical reinforcement learning algorithm which can build skill trees from a set of sample solution trajectories obtained from demonstration. CST uses an incremental MAP (maximum a posteriori) change point detection algorithm to segment each demonstration trajectory into skills and integrate the results into a skill tree. CST was introduced by George Konidaris, Scott Kuindersma, Andrew Barto and Roderic Grupen in 2010. == Algorithm == CST consists of mainly three parts;change point detection, alignment and merging. The main focus of CST is online change-point detection. The change-point detection algorithm is used to segment data into skills and uses the sum of discounted reward R t {\displaystyle R_{t}} as the target regression variable. Each skill is assigned an appropriate abstraction. A particle filter is used to control the computational complexity of CST. The change point detection algorithm is implemented as follows. The data for times t ∈ T {\displaystyle t\in T} and models Q with prior p ( q ∈ Q ) {\displaystyle p(q\in Q)} are given. The algorithm is assumed to be able to fit a segment from time j + 1 {\displaystyle j+1} to t using model q with the fit probability P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)_{}^{}} . A linear regression model with Gaussian noise is used to compute P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)} . The Gaussian noise prior has mean zero, and variance which follows I n v e r s e G a m m a ( v 2 , u 2 ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {InverseGamma} \left({\frac {v}{2}},{\frac {u}{2}}\right)} . The prior for each weight follows N o r m a l ( 0 , σ 2 δ ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Normal} (0,\sigma ^{2}\delta )} . The fit probability P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)} is computed by the following equation. P ( j , t , q ) = π − n 2 δ m | ( A + D ) − 1 | 1 2 u v 2 ( y + u ) u + v 2 Γ ( n + v 2 ) Γ ( v 2 ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)={\frac {\pi ^{-{\frac {n}{2}}}}{\delta ^{m}}}\left|(A+D)^{-1}\right|^{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {u^{\frac {v}{2}}}{(y+u)^{\frac {u+v}{2}}}}{\frac {\Gamma ({\frac {n+v}{2}})}{\Gamma ({\frac {v}{2}})}}} Then, CST compute the probability of the changepoint at time j with model q, P t ( j , q ) {\displaystyle P_{t}(j,q)} and P j MAP {\displaystyle P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}} using a Viterbi algorithm. P t ( j , q ) = ( 1 − G ( t − j − 1 ) ) P ( j , t , q ) p ( q ) P j MAP {\displaystyle P_{t}(j,q)=(1-G(t-j-1))P(j,t,q)p(q)P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}} P j MAP = max i , q P j ( i , q ) g ( j − i ) 1 − G ( j − i − 1 ) , ∀ j < t {\displaystyle P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}=\max _{i,q}{\frac {P_{j}(i,q)g(j-i)}{1-G(j-i-1)}},\forall j Read more →

• 

  Constructing skill trees

  Constructing skill trees (CST) is a hierarchical reinforcement learning algorithm which can build skill trees from a set of sample solution trajectories obtained from demonstration. CST uses an incremental MAP (maximum a posteriori) change point detection algorithm to segment each demonstration trajectory into skills and integrate the results into a skill tree. CST was introduced by George Konidaris, Scott Kuindersma, Andrew Barto and Roderic Grupen in 2010. == Algorithm == CST consists of mainly three parts;change point detection, alignment and merging. The main focus of CST is online change-point detection. The change-point detection algorithm is used to segment data into skills and uses the sum of discounted reward R t {\displaystyle R_{t}} as the target regression variable. Each skill is assigned an appropriate abstraction. A particle filter is used to control the computational complexity of CST. The change point detection algorithm is implemented as follows. The data for times t ∈ T {\displaystyle t\in T} and models Q with prior p ( q ∈ Q ) {\displaystyle p(q\in Q)} are given. The algorithm is assumed to be able to fit a segment from time j + 1 {\displaystyle j+1} to t using model q with the fit probability P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)_{}^{}} . A linear regression model with Gaussian noise is used to compute P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)} . The Gaussian noise prior has mean zero, and variance which follows I n v e r s e G a m m a ( v 2 , u 2 ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {InverseGamma} \left({\frac {v}{2}},{\frac {u}{2}}\right)} . The prior for each weight follows N o r m a l ( 0 , σ 2 δ ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Normal} (0,\sigma ^{2}\delta )} . The fit probability P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)} is computed by the following equation. P ( j , t , q ) = π − n 2 δ m | ( A + D ) − 1 | 1 2 u v 2 ( y + u ) u + v 2 Γ ( n + v 2 ) Γ ( v 2 ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)={\frac {\pi ^{-{\frac {n}{2}}}}{\delta ^{m}}}\left|(A+D)^{-1}\right|^{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {u^{\frac {v}{2}}}{(y+u)^{\frac {u+v}{2}}}}{\frac {\Gamma ({\frac {n+v}{2}})}{\Gamma ({\frac {v}{2}})}}} Then, CST compute the probability of the changepoint at time j with model q, P t ( j , q ) {\displaystyle P_{t}(j,q)} and P j MAP {\displaystyle P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}} using a Viterbi algorithm. P t ( j , q ) = ( 1 − G ( t − j − 1 ) ) P ( j , t , q ) p ( q ) P j MAP {\displaystyle P_{t}(j,q)=(1-G(t-j-1))P(j,t,q)p(q)P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}} P j MAP = max i , q P j ( i , q ) g ( j − i ) 1 − G ( j − i − 1 ) , ∀ j < t {\displaystyle P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}=\max _{i,q}{\frac {P_{j}(i,q)g(j-i)}{1-G(j-i-1)}},\forall j Read more →

• 

  Quantum neural network

  Quantum neural networks are computational neural network models which are based on the principles of quantum mechanics. The first ideas on quantum neural computation were published independently in 1995 by Subhash Kak and Ron Chrisley, engaging with the theory of quantum mind, which posits that quantum effects play a role in cognitive function. However, typical research in quantum neural networks involves combining classical artificial neural network models (which are widely used in machine learning for the important task of pattern recognition) with the advantages of quantum information in order to develop more efficient algorithms. One important motivation for these investigations is the difficulty to train classical neural networks, especially in big data applications. The hope is that features of quantum computing such as quantum parallelism or the effects of interference and entanglement can be used as resources. Since the technological implementation of a quantum computer is still in a premature stage, such quantum neural network models are mostly theoretical proposals that await their full implementation in physical experiments. Most Quantum neural networks are developed as feed-forward networks. Similar to their classical counterparts, this structure intakes input from one layer of qubits, and passes that input onto another layer of qubits. This layer of qubits evaluates this information and passes on the output to the next layer. Eventually the path leads to the final layer of qubits. The layers do not have to be of the same width, meaning they don't have to have the same number of qubits as the layer before or after it. This structure is trained on which path to take similar to classical artificial neural networks. This is discussed in a lower section. Quantum neural networks refer to three different categories: Quantum computer with classical data, classical computer with quantum data, and quantum computer with quantum data. == Examples == Quantum neural network research is still in its infancy, and a conglomeration of proposals and ideas of varying scope and mathematical rigor have been put forward. Most of them are based on the idea of replacing classical binary or McCulloch-Pitts neurons with a qubit (which can be called a "quron"), resulting in neural units that can be in a superposition of the state 'firing' and 'resting'. === Quantum perceptrons === A lot of proposals attempt to find a quantum equivalent for the perceptron unit from which neural nets are constructed. A problem is that nonlinear activation functions do not immediately correspond to the mathematical structure of quantum theory, since a quantum evolution is described by linear operations and leads to probabilistic observation. Ideas to imitate the perceptron activation function with a quantum mechanical formalism reach from special measurements to postulating non-linear quantum operators (a mathematical framework that is disputed). A direct implementation of the activation function using the circuit-based model of quantum computation has recently been proposed by Schuld, Sinayskiy and Petruccione based on the quantum phase estimation algorithm. === Quantum networks === At a larger scale, researchers have attempted to generalize neural networks to the quantum setting. One way of constructing a quantum neuron is to first generalise classical neurons and then generalising them further to make unitary gates. Interactions between neurons can be controlled quantumly, with unitary gates, or classically, via measurement of the network states. This high-level theoretical technique can be applied broadly, by taking different types of networks and different implementations of quantum neurons, such as photonically implemented neurons and quantum reservoir processor (quantum version of reservoir computing). Most learning algorithms follow the classical model of training an artificial neural network to learn the input-output function of a given training set and use classical feedback loops to update parameters of the quantum system until they converge to an optimal configuration. Learning as a parameter optimisation problem has also been approached by adiabatic models of quantum computing. Quantum neural networks can be applied to algorithmic design: given qubits with tunable mutual interactions, one can attempt to learn interactions following the classical backpropagation rule from a training set of desired input-output relations, taken to be the desired output algorithm's behavior. The quantum network thus 'learns' an algorithm. === Quantum associative memory === The first quantum associative memory algorithm was introduced by Dan Ventura and Tony Martinez in 1999. The authors do not attempt to translate the structure of artificial neural network models into quantum theory, but propose an algorithm for a circuit-based quantum computer that simulates associative memory. The memory states (in Hopfield neural networks saved in the weights of the neural connections) are written into a superposition, and a Grover-like quantum search algorithm retrieves the memory state closest to a given input. As such, this is not a fully content-addressable memory, since only incomplete patterns can be retrieved. The first truly content-addressable quantum memory, which can retrieve patterns also from corrupted inputs, was proposed by Carlo A. Trugenberger. Both memories can store an exponential (in terms of n qubits) number of patterns but can be used only once due to the no-cloning theorem and their destruction upon measurement. Trugenberger, however, has shown that his probabilistic model of quantum associative memory can be efficiently implemented and re-used multiples times for any polynomial number of stored patterns, a large advantage with respect to classical associative memories. === Classical neural networks inspired by quantum theory === A substantial amount of interest has been given to a "quantum-inspired" model that uses ideas from quantum theory to implement a neural network based on fuzzy logic. == Training == Quantum Neural Networks can be theoretically trained similarly to training classical/artificial neural networks. A key difference lies in communication between the layers of a neural networks. For classical neural networks, at the end of a given operation, the current perceptron copies its output to the next layer of perceptron(s) in the network. However, in a quantum neural network, where each perceptron is a qubit, this would violate the no-cloning theorem. A proposed generalized solution to this is to replace the classical fan-out method with an arbitrary unitary that spreads out, but does not copy, the output of one qubit to the next layer of qubits. Using this fan-out Unitary ( U f {\displaystyle U_{f}} ) with a dummy state qubit in a known state (Ex. | 0 ⟩ {\displaystyle |0\rangle } in the computational basis), also known as an Ancilla bit, the information from the qubit can be transferred to the next layer of qubits. This process adheres to the quantum operation requirement of reversibility. Using this quantum feed-forward network, deep neural networks can be executed and trained efficiently. A deep neural network is essentially a network with many hidden-layers, as seen in the sample model neural network above. Since the Quantum neural network being discussed uses fan-out Unitary operators, and each operator only acts on its respective input, only two layers are used at any given time. In other words, no Unitary operator is acting on the entire network at any given time, meaning the number of qubits required for a given step depends on the number of inputs in a given layer. Since Quantum Computers are notorious for their ability to run multiple iterations in a short period of time, the efficiency of a quantum neural network is solely dependent on the number of qubits in any given layer, and not on the depth of the network. === Cost functions === To determine the effectiveness of a neural network, a cost function is used, which essentially measures the proximity of the network's output to the expected or desired output. In a Classical Neural Network, the weights ( w {\displaystyle w} ) and biases ( b {\displaystyle b} ) at each step determine the outcome of the cost function C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} . When training a Classical Neural network, the weights and biases are adjusted after each iteration, and given equation 1 below, where y ( x ) {\displaystyle y(x)} is the desired output and a out ( x ) {\displaystyle a^{\text{out}}(x)} is the actual output, the cost function is optimized when C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} = 0. For a quantum neural network, the cost function is determined by measuring the fidelity of the outcome state ( ρ out {\displaystyle \rho ^{\text{out}}} ) with the desired outcome state ( ϕ out {\displaystyle \phi ^{\text{out}}} ), seen in Equation 2 below. In this case, the Unitary operators are adjusted after each it

  Read more →
• 

  Isotropic position

  In the fields of machine learning, the theory of computation, and random matrix theory, a probability distribution over vectors is said to be in isotropic position if its covariance matrix is proportional to the identity matrix. == Formal definitions == Let D {\textstyle D} be a distribution over vectors in the vector space R n {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . Then D {\textstyle D} is in isotropic position if, for vector v {\textstyle v} sampled from the distribution, E v v T = I d . {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} \,vv^{\mathsf {T}}=\mathrm {Id} .} A set of vectors is said to be in isotropic position if the uniform distribution over that set is in isotropic position. In particular, every orthonormal set of vectors is isotropic. As a related definition, a convex body K {\textstyle K} in R n {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} is called isotropic if it has volume | K | = 1 {\textstyle |K|=1} , center of mass at the origin, and there is a constant α > 0 {\textstyle \alpha >0} such that ∫ K ⟨ x , y ⟩ 2 d x = α 2 | y | 2 , {\displaystyle \int _{K}\langle x,y\rangle ^{2}dx=\alpha ^{2}|y|^{2},} for all vectors y {\textstyle y} in R n {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} ; here | ⋅ | {\textstyle |\cdot |} stands for the standard Euclidean norm.

  Read more →
• 

  Ho–Kashyap algorithm

  The Ho–Kashyap algorithm is an iterative method in machine learning for finding a linear decision boundary that separates two linearly separable classes. It was developed by Yu-Chi Ho and Rangasami L. Kashyap in 1965, and usually presented as a problem in linear programming. == Setup == Given a training set consisting of samples from two classes, the Ho–Kashyap algorithm seeks to find a weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } and a margin vector b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } such that: Y w = b {\displaystyle \mathbf {Yw} =\mathbf {b} } where Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } is the augmented data matrix with samples from both classes (with appropriate sign conventions, e.g., samples from class 2 are negated), w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is the weight vector to be determined, and b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } is a positive margin vector. The algorithm minimizes the criterion function: J ( w , b ) = | | Y w − b | | 2 {\displaystyle J(\mathbf {w} ,\mathbf {b} )=||\mathbf {Yw} -\mathbf {b} ||^{2}} subject to the constraint that b > 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} >\mathbf {0} } (element-wise). Given a problem of linearly separating two classes, we consider a dataset of elements { ( x i , y i ) } i ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle \{(\mathbf {x_{i}} ,y_{i})\}_{i\in 1:N}} where y i ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,+1\}} . Linearly separating them by a perceptron is equivalent to finding weight and bias w , b {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ,b} for a perceptron, such that: [ y 1 x 1 1 ⋮ ⋮ y N x N 1 ] [ w b ] > 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}y_{1}\mathbf {x} _{1}&1\\\vdots &\vdots \\y_{N}\mathbf {x} _{N}&1\\\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf {w} \\b\end{bmatrix}}>0} == Algorithm == The idea of the Ho–Kashyap algorithm is as follows: Given any b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } , the corresponding w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is known: It is simply w = Y + b {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} =\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} } , where Y + {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} ^{+}} denotes the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse of Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } . Therefore, it only remains to find b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } by gradient descent. However, the gradient descent may sometimes decrease some of the coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } , which may cause some coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } to become negative, which is undesirable. Therefore, whenever some coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } would have decreased, those coordinates are unchanged instead. As for the coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } that would increase, those would increase without issue. Formally, the algorithm is as follows: Initialization: Set b ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (0)} to an arbitrary positive vector, typically b ( 0 ) = 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (0)=\mathbf {1} } (a vector of ones). Set the iteration counter k = 0 {\displaystyle k=0} . Set w ( 0 ) = Y + b ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (0)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (0)} Loop until convergence, or until iteration counter exceeds some k m a x {\displaystyle k_{max}} . Error calculation: Compute the error vector: e ( k ) = Y w ( k ) − b ( k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {Yw} (k)-\mathbf {b} (k)} . Margin update: Update the margin vector: b ( k + 1 ) = b ( k ) + 2 η k ( e ( k ) + | e ( k ) | ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (k+1)=\mathbf {b} (k)+2\eta _{k}(\mathbf {e} (k)+|\mathbf {e} (k)|)} where η k {\displaystyle \eta _{k}} is a positive learning rate parameter, and | e ( k ) | {\displaystyle |\mathbf {e} (k)|} denotes the element-wise absolute value. Weight calculation: Compute the weight vector using the pseudoinverse: w ( k + 1 ) = Y + b ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (k+1)} . Convergence check: If | | e ( k ) | | ≤ θ {\displaystyle ||\mathbf {e} (k)||\leq \theta } for some predetermined threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } (close to zero), then return b ( k + 1 ) , w ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (k+1),\mathbf {w} (k+1)} . if e ( k ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)\leq \mathbf {0} } (all components non-positive), return "Samples not separable.". Return "Algorithm failed to converge in time.". == Properties == If the training data is linearly separable, the algorithm converges to a solution (where e ( k ) = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {0} } ) in a finite number of iterations. If the data is not linearly separable, the algorithm may or may not ever reach the point where e ( k ) = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {0} } . However, if it does happen that e ( k ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)\leq \mathbf {0} } at some iteration, this proves non-separability. The convergence rate depends on the choice of the learning rate parameter ρ {\displaystyle \rho } and the degree of linear separability of the data. == Relationship to other algorithms == Perceptron algorithm: Both seek linear separators. The perceptron updates weights incrementally based on individual misclassified samples, while Ho–Kashyap is a batch method that processes all samples to compute the pseudoinverse and updates based on an overall error vector. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA): LDA assumes underlying Gaussian distributions with equal covariances for the classes and derives the decision boundary from these statistical assumptions. Ho–Kashyap makes no explicit distributional assumptions and instead tries to solve a system of linear inequalities directly. Support vector machines (SVM): For linearly separable data, SVMs aim to find the maximum-margin hyperplane. The Ho–Kashyap algorithm finds a separating hyperplane but not necessarily the one with the maximum margin. If the data is not separable, soft-margin SVMs allow for some misclassifications by optimizing a trade-off between margin size and misclassification penalty, while Ho–Kashyap provides a least-squares solution. == Variants == Modified Ho–Kashyap algorithm changes weight calculation step w ( k + 1 ) = Y + b ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (k+1)} to w ( k + 1 ) = w ( k ) + η k Y + | e ( k ) | {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {w} (k)+\eta _{k}\mathbf {Y} ^{+}|\mathbf {e} (k)|} . Kernel Ho–Kashyap algorithm: Applies kernel methods (the "kernel trick") to the Ho–Kashyap framework to enable non-linear classification by implicitly mapping data to a higher-dimensional feature space.

  Read more →
• 

  Feature selection

  In machine learning, feature selection is the process of selecting a subset of relevant features (variables, predictors) for use in model construction. Feature selection techniques are used for several reasons: simplification of models to make them easier to interpret, shorter training times, to avoid the curse of dimensionality, improve the compatibility of the data with a certain learning model class, to encode inherent symmetries present in the input space. The central premise when using feature selection is that data sometimes contains features that are redundant or irrelevant, and can thus be removed without incurring much loss of information. Redundancy and irrelevance are two distinct notions, since one relevant feature may be redundant in the presence of another relevant feature with which it is strongly correlated. Feature extraction creates new features from functions of the original features, whereas feature selection finds a subset of the features. Feature selection techniques are often used in domains where there are many features and comparatively few samples (data points). == Introduction == A feature selection algorithm can be seen as the combination of a search technique for proposing new feature subsets, along with an evaluation measure which scores the different feature subsets. The simplest algorithm is to test each possible subset of features finding the one which minimizes the error rate. This is an exhaustive search of the space, and is computationally intractable for all but the smallest of feature sets. The choice of evaluation metric heavily influences the algorithm, and it is these evaluation metrics which distinguish between the three main categories of feature selection algorithms: wrappers, filters and embedded methods. Wrapper methods use a predictive model to score feature subsets. Each new subset is used to train a model, which is tested on a hold-out set. Counting the number of mistakes made on that hold-out set (the error rate of the model) gives the score for that subset. As wrapper methods train a new model for each subset, they are very computationally intensive, but usually provide the best performing feature set for that particular type of model or typical problem. Filter methods use a proxy measure instead of the error rate to score a feature subset. This measure is chosen to be fast to compute, while still capturing the usefulness of the feature set. Common measures include the mutual information, the pointwise mutual information, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Relief-based algorithms, and inter/intra class distance or the scores of significance tests for each class/feature combinations. Filters are usually less computationally intensive than wrappers, but they produce a feature set which is not tuned to a specific type of predictive model. This lack of tuning means a feature set from a filter is more general than the set from a wrapper, usually giving lower prediction performance than a wrapper. However the feature set doesn't contain the assumptions of a prediction model, and so is more useful for exposing the relationships between the features. Many filters provide a feature ranking rather than an explicit best feature subset, and the cut off point in the ranking is chosen via cross-validation. Filter methods have also been used as a preprocessing step for wrapper methods, allowing a wrapper to be used on larger problems. One other popular approach is the Recursive Feature Elimination algorithm, commonly used with Support Vector Machines to repeatedly construct a model and remove features with low weights. Embedded methods are a catch-all group of techniques which perform feature selection as part of the model construction process. The exemplar of this approach is the LASSO method for constructing a linear model, which penalizes the regression coefficients with an L1 penalty, shrinking many of them to zero. Any features which have non-zero regression coefficients are 'selected' by the LASSO algorithm. Improvements to the LASSO include Bolasso which bootstraps samples; Elastic net regularization, which combines the L1 penalty of LASSO with the L2 penalty of ridge regression; and FeaLect which scores all the features based on combinatorial analysis of regression coefficients. AEFS further extends LASSO to nonlinear scenario with autoencoders. These approaches tend to be between filters and wrappers in terms of computational complexity. In traditional regression analysis, the most popular form of feature selection is stepwise regression, which is a wrapper technique. It is a greedy algorithm that adds the best feature (or deletes the worst feature) at each round. The main control issue is deciding when to stop the algorithm. In machine learning, this is typically done by cross-validation. In statistics, some criteria are optimized. This leads to the inherent problem of nesting. More robust methods have been explored, such as branch and bound and piecewise linear network. == Subset selection == Subset selection evaluates a subset of features as a group for suitability. Subset selection algorithms can be broken up into wrappers, filters, and embedded methods. Wrappers use a search algorithm to search through the space of possible features and evaluate each subset by running a model on the subset. Wrappers can be computationally expensive and have a risk of over fitting to the model. Filters are similar to wrappers in the search approach, but instead of evaluating against a model, a simpler filter is evaluated. Embedded techniques are embedded in, and specific to, a model. Many popular search approaches use greedy hill climbing, which iteratively evaluates a candidate subset of features, then modifies the subset and evaluates if the new subset is an improvement over the old. Evaluation of the subsets requires a scoring metric that grades a subset of features. Exhaustive search is generally impractical, so at some implementor (or operator) defined stopping point, the subset of features with the highest score discovered up to that point is selected as the satisfactory feature subset. The stopping criterion varies by algorithm; possible criteria include: a subset score exceeds a threshold, a program's maximum allowed run time has been surpassed, etc. Alternative search-based techniques are based on targeted projection pursuit which finds low-dimensional projections of the data that score highly: the features that have the largest projections in the lower-dimensional space are then selected. Search approaches include: Exhaustive Best first Simulated annealing Genetic algorithm Greedy forward selection Greedy backward elimination Particle swarm optimization Targeted projection pursuit Scatter search Variable neighborhood search Two popular filter metrics for classification problems are correlation and mutual information, although neither are true metrics or 'distance measures' in the mathematical sense, since they fail to obey the triangle inequality and thus do not compute any actual 'distance' – they should rather be regarded as 'scores'. These scores are computed between a candidate feature (or set of features) and the desired output category. There are, however, true metrics that are a simple function of the mutual information; see here. Other available filter metrics include: Class separability Error probability Inter-class distance Probabilistic distance Entropy Consistency-based feature selection Correlation-based feature selection == Optimality criteria == The choice of optimality criteria is difficult as there are multiple objectives in a feature selection task. Many common criteria incorporate a measure of accuracy, penalised by the number of features selected. Examples include Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Mallows's Cp, which have a penalty of 2 for each added feature. AIC is based on information theory, and is effectively derived via the maximum entropy principle. Other criteria are Bayesian information criterion (BIC), which uses a penalty of log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} for each added feature, minimum description length (MDL) which asymptotically uses log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} , Bonferroni / RIC which use 2 log ⁡ p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {p}}}} , maximum dependency feature selection, and a variety of new criteria that are motivated by false discovery rate (FDR), which use something close to 2 log ⁡ p q {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {\frac {p}{q}}}}} . A maximum entropy rate criterion may also be used to select the most relevant subset of features. == Structure learning == Filter feature selection is a specific case of a more general paradigm called structure learning. Feature selection finds the relevant feature set for a specific target variable whereas structure learning finds the relationships between all the variables, usually by expressing these relationships as a graph. The most common structure learning algorithms

  Read more →
• 

  Spiking neural network

  Spiking neural networks (SNNs) are artificial neural networks (ANN) that mimic natural neural networks. These models leverage timing of discrete spikes as the main information carrier. In addition to neuronal and synaptic state, SNNs incorporate the concept of time into their operating model. The idea is that neurons in the SNN do not transmit information at each propagation cycle (as it happens with typical multi-layer perceptron networks), but rather transmit information only when a membrane potential—an intrinsic quality of the neuron related to its membrane electrical charge—reaches a specific value, called the threshold. When the membrane potential reaches the threshold, the neuron fires, and generates a signal that travels to other neurons which, in turn, increase or decrease their potentials in response to this signal. A neuron model that fires at the moment of threshold crossing is also called a spiking neuron model. While spike rates can be considered the analogue of the variable output of a traditional ANN, neurobiology research indicated that high speed processing cannot be performed solely through a rate-based scheme. For example humans can perform an image recognition task requiring no more than 10ms of processing time per neuron through the successive layers (going from the retina to the temporal lobe). This time window is too short for rate-based encoding. The precise spike timings in a small set of spiking neurons also has a higher information coding capacity compared with a rate-based approach. The most prominent spiking neuron model is the leaky integrate-and-fire model. In that model, the momentary activation level (modeled as a differential equation) is normally considered to be the neuron's state, with incoming spikes pushing this value higher or lower, until the state eventually either decays or—if the firing threshold is reached—the neuron fires. After firing, the state variable is reset to a lower value. Various decoding methods exist for interpreting the outgoing spike train as a real-value number, relying on either the frequency of spikes (rate-code), the time-to-first-spike after stimulation, or the interval between spikes. == History == Many multi-layer artificial neural networks are fully connected, receiving input from every neuron in the previous layer and signalling every neuron in the subsequent layer. Although these networks have achieved breakthroughs, they do not match biological networks and do not mimic neurons. The biology-inspired Hodgkin–Huxley model of a spiking neuron was proposed in 1952. This model described how action potentials are initiated and propagated. Communication between neurons, which requires the exchange of chemical neurotransmitters in the synaptic gap, is described in models such as the integrate-and-fire model, FitzHugh–Nagumo model (1961–1962), and Hindmarsh–Rose model (1984). The leaky integrate-and-fire model (or a derivative) is commonly used as it is easier to compute than Hodgkin–Huxley. While the notion of an artificial spiking neural network became popular only in the twenty-first century, studies between 1980 and 1995 supported the concept. The first models of this type of ANN appeared to simulate non-algorithmic intelligent information processing systems. However, the notion of the spiking neural network as a mathematical model was first worked on in the early 1970s. As of 2019 SNNs lagged behind ANNs in accuracy, but the gap is decreasing, and has vanished on some tasks. == Underpinnings == Information in the brain is represented as action potentials (neuron spikes), which may group into spike trains or coordinated waves. A fundamental question of neuroscience is to determine whether neurons communicate by a rate or temporal code. Temporal coding implies that a single spiking neuron can replace hundreds of hidden units on a conventional neural net. SNNs define a neuron's current state as its potential (possibly modeled as a differential equation). An input pulse causes the potential to rise and then gradually decline. Encoding schemes can interpret these pulse sequences as a number, considering pulse frequency and pulse interval. Using the precise time of pulse occurrence, a neural network can consider more information and offer better computing properties. SNNs compute in the continuous domain. Such neurons test for activation only when their potentials reach a certain value. When a neuron is activated, it produces a signal that is passed to connected neurons, accordingly raising or lowering their potentials. The SNN approach produces a continuous output instead of the binary output of traditional ANNs. Pulse trains are not easily interpretable, hence the need for encoding schemes. However, a pulse train representation may be more suited for processing spatiotemporal data (or real-world sensory data classification). SNNs connect neurons only to nearby neurons so that they process input blocks separately (similar to CNN using filters). They consider time by encoding information as pulse trains so as not to lose information. This avoids the complexity of a recurrent neural network (RNN). Impulse neurons are more powerful computational units than traditional artificial neurons. SNNs are theoretically more powerful than so called "second-generation networks" defined as ANNs "based on computational units that apply activation function with a continuous set of possible output values to a weighted sum (or polynomial) of the inputs"; however, SNN training issues and hardware requirements limit their use. Although unsupervised biologically inspired learning methods are available such as Hebbian learning and STDP, no effective supervised training method is suitable for SNNs that can provide better performance than second-generation networks. Spike-based activation of SNNs is not differentiable, thus gradient descent-based backpropagation (BP) is not available. SNNs have much larger computational costs for simulating realistic neural models than traditional ANNs. Pulse-coupled neural networks (PCNN) are often confused with SNNs. A PCNN can be seen as a kind of SNN. Researchers are actively working on various topics. The first concerns differentiability. The expressions for both the forward- and backward-learning methods contain the derivative of the neural activation function which is not differentiable because a neuron's output is either 1 when it spikes, and 0 otherwise. This all-or-nothing behavior disrupts gradients and makes these neurons unsuitable for gradient-based optimization. Approaches to resolving it include: resorting to entirely biologically inspired local learning rules for the hidden units translating conventionally trained "rate-based" NNs to SNNs smoothing the network model to be continuously differentiable defining an SG (Surrogate Gradient) as a continuous relaxation of the real gradients The second concerns the optimization algorithm. Standard BP can be expensive in terms of computation, memory, and communication and may be poorly suited to the hardware that implements it (e.g., a computer, brain, or neuromorphic device). Incorporating additional neuron dynamics such as Spike Frequency Adaptation (SFA) is a notable advance, enhancing efficiency and computational power. These neurons sit between biological complexity and computational complexity. Originating from biological insights, SFA offers significant computational benefits by reducing power usage, especially in cases of repetitive or intense stimuli. This adaptation improves signal/noise clarity and introduces an elementary short-term memory at the neuron level, which in turn, improves accuracy and efficiency. This was mostly achieved using compartmental neuron models. The simpler versions are of neuron models with adaptive thresholds, are an indirect way of achieving SFA. It equips SNNs with improved learning capabilities, even with constrained synaptic plasticity, and elevates computational efficiency. This feature lessens the demand on network layers by decreasing the need for spike processing, thus lowering computational load and memory access time—essential aspects of neural computation. Moreover, SNNs utilizing neurons capable of SFA achieve levels of accuracy that rival those of conventional ANNs, while also requiring fewer neurons for comparable tasks. This efficiency streamlines the computational workflow and conserves space and energy, while maintaining technical integrity. High-performance deep spiking neural networks can operate with 0.3 spikes per neuron. == Applications == SNNs can in principle be applied to the same applications as traditional ANNs. In addition, SNNs can model the central nervous system of biological organisms, such as an insect seeking food without prior knowledge of the environment. Due to their relative realism, they can be used to study biological neural circuits. Starting with a hypothesis about the topology of a biological neuronal circuit and its functi

  Read more →
• 

  Video Super Resolution

  RTX Video Super Resolution (RTX VSR) is a video scaling feature by Nvidia. It was released on February 28, 2023. == History == The feature was first unveiled during CES 2023 as RTX Video Super Resolution. It uses the on-board Tensor Cores to upscale browser video content in real time. Video Super Resolution was initially only available on RTX 30 and 40 series GPUs, while support for 20 series GPUs was added afterwards; it is now available on all Nvidia RTX-branded GPUs. The feature supports input resolutions from 360p to 1440p and a max output of 4K and comes without support for HDR content although that could be likely added in the future. Nvidia released RTX Video Super Resolution 1.5 with improved video quality and RTX 20 series support on October 17, 2023. == Reception == According to ComputerBase, although "the algorithm is not yet working flawlessly", the feature is "overall recommendable".

  Read more →
• 

  Correlation clustering

  Clustering is the problem of partitioning data points into groups based on similarity or dissimilarity. Correlation clustering is a clustering framework in which a set of objects is partitioned into clusters based on pairwise similarity and dissimilarity information, without requiring the number of clusters to be specified in advance. == Description of the problem == In machine learning, correlation clustering (also known as cluster editing) considers settings in which pairwise similarity or dissimilarity relationships between objects are known. A standard formulation models the input as an unweighted complete graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} , where each edge is labeled either + {\displaystyle +} or − {\displaystyle -} (that is, the graph is a signed graph), indicating whether the corresponding endpoints are similar or dissimilar. The goal is to find a clustering (that is, a partition of V {\displaystyle V} ) that either maximizes the number of agreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster and negative edges whose endpoints lie in different clusters—or minimizes the number of disagreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints are separated and negative edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster. Unlike other clustering methods such as k-means, correlation clustering does not require choosing the number of clusters k {\displaystyle k} in advance. It is not always possible to find a clustering with zero disagreements. For example, consider a triangle graph containing two positive edges and one negative edge. In this case, every clustering incurs at least one disagreement. Such configurations are referred to in the literature as bad triangles. From a computational perspective, optimizing the correlation clustering objective is challenging. The (decision version of the) problem is NP-complete. A large body of subsequent work has developed approximation algorithms for correlation clustering under various assumptions, including complete or general graphs and unweighted or weighted graphs, for both minimization and maximization objectives. This problem is considered one of the fundamental combinatorial optimization problems, and many algorithmic techniques have been developed to address it. The problem has also been studied extensively across multiple disciplines. A comprehensive literature review of early correlation clustering research is provided by Wahid and Hassini. == Formal Definitions == Let G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} be a graph with nodes V {\displaystyle V} and edges E {\displaystyle E} . A clustering of G {\displaystyle G} is a partition of its node set Π = { π 1 , … , π k } {\displaystyle \Pi =\{\pi _{1},\dots ,\pi _{k}\}} with V = π 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ π k {\displaystyle V=\pi _{1}\cup \dots \cup \pi _{k}} and π i ∩ π j = ∅ {\displaystyle \pi _{i}\cap \pi _{j}=\emptyset } for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} . For a given clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } , let δ ( Π ) = { { u , v } ∈ E ∣ { u , v } ⊈ π ∀ π ∈ Π } {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )=\{\{u,v\}\in E\mid \{u,v\}\not \subseteq \pi \;\forall \pi \in \Pi \}} denote the subset of edges of G {\displaystyle G} whose endpoints are in different subsets of the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Now, let w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} be a function that assigns a non-negative weight to each edge of the graph and let E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} be a partition of the edges into attractive ( E + {\displaystyle E^{+}} ) and repulsive ( E − {\displaystyle E^{-}} ) edges; that is, the edges are signed. The minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem is the following optimization problem: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∩ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∖ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that disagree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Similarly to the minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem, the maximum agreement correlation clustering problem is defined as maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∖ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∩ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that agree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Instead of formulating the correlation clustering problem in terms of non-negative edge weights and a partition of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges the problem is also formulated in terms of positive and negative edge costs without partitioning the set of edges explicitly. For given weights w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} and a given partition E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges, the edge costs can be defined by c e = { w e if e ∈ E + − w e if e ∈ E − {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}c_{e}={\begin{cases}\;\;w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{+}\\-w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{-}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} for all e ∈ E {\displaystyle e\in E} . An edge whose endpoints are in different clusters is said to be cut. The set δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )} of all edges that are cut is often called a multicut of G {\displaystyle G} . The minimum cost multicut problem is the problem of finding a clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } of G {\displaystyle G} such that the sum of the costs of the edges whose endpoints are in different clusters is minimal: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Similar to the minimum cost multicut problem, coalition structure generation in weighted graph games is the problem of finding a clustering such that the sum of the costs of the edges that are not cut is maximal: maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E ∖ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E\setminus \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} This formulation is also known as the clique partitioning problem. It can be shown that all four problems that are formulated above are equivalent. This means that a clustering that is optimal with respect to any of the four objectives is optimal for all of the four objectives. == Algorithms == If the graph admits a clustering with zero disagreements, then deleting all negative edges and computing the connected components of the remaining graph yields an optimal clustering. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a clustering was given by Davis: no cycle in the graph may contain exactly one negative edge. Bansal et al. discuss the NP-completeness proof and also present both a constant factor approximation algorithm and polynomial-time approximation scheme to find the clusters in this setting. Ailon et al. propose a randomized 3-approximation algorithm for the same problem. CC-Pivot(G=(V,E+,E−)) Pick random pivot i ∈ V Set C = { i } {\displaystyle C=\{i\}} , V'=Ø For all j ∈ V, j ≠ i; If (i,j) ∈ E+ then Add j to C Else (If (i,j) ∈ E−) Add j to V' Let G' be the subgraph induced by V' Return clustering C,CC-Pivot(G') The authors show that the above algorithm is a 3-approximation algorithm for correlation clustering. The best polynomial-time approximation algorithm known at the moment for this problem achieves a ~2.06 approximation by rounding a linear program, as shown by Chawla, Makarychev, Schramm, and Yaroslavtsev. Karpinski and Schudy proved existence of a polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) for that problem on complete graphs and fixed number of clusters. == Optimal number of clusters == In 2011, it was shown by Bagon and Galun that the optimization of the correlation clustering functional is closely related to well known discrete optimization methods. In their work they proposed a probabilistic analysis of the underlying implicit model that allows the correlation clustering functional to estimate the

  Read more →
• 

  Sample exclusion dimension

  In computational learning theory, sample exclusion dimensions arise in the study of exact concept learning with queries. In algorithmic learning theory, a concept over a domain X is a Boolean function over X. Here we only consider finite domains. A partial approximation S of a concept c is a Boolean function over Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} such that c is an extension to S. Let C be a class of concepts and c be a concept (not necessarily in C). Then a specifying set for c w.r.t. C, denoted by S is a partial approximation S of c such that C contains at most one extension to S. If we have observed a specifying set for some concept w.r.t. C, then we have enough information to verify a concept in C with at most one more mind change. The exclusion dimension, denoted by XD(C), of a concept class is the maximum of the size of the minimum specifying set of c' with respect to C, where c' is a concept not in C.

  Read more →