AI for Business

Explore the best AI for Business — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

Algorithm selection

Algorithm selection (sometimes also called per-instance algorithm selection or offline algorithm selection) is a meta-algorithmic technique to choose an algorithm from a portfolio on an instance-by-instance basis. It is motivated by the observation that on many practical problems, different algorithms have different performance characteristics. That is, while one algorithm performs well in some scenarios, it performs poorly in others and vice versa for another algorithm. If we can identify when to use which algorithm, we can optimize for each scenario and improve overall performance. This is what algorithm selection aims to do. The only prerequisite for applying algorithm selection techniques is that there exists (or that there can be constructed) a set of complementary algorithms. == Definition == Given a portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} , a set of instances i ∈ I {\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}} and a cost metric m : P × I → R {\displaystyle m:{\mathcal {P}}\times {\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } , the algorithm selection problem consists of finding a mapping s : I → P {\displaystyle s:{\mathcal {I}}\to {\mathcal {P}}} from instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} to algorithms P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} such that the cost ∑ i ∈ I m ( s ( i ) , i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}m(s(i),i)} across all instances is optimized. == Examples == === Boolean satisfiability problem (and other hard combinatorial problems) === A well-known application of algorithm selection is the Boolean satisfiability problem. Here, the portfolio of algorithms is a set of (complementary) SAT solvers, the instances are Boolean formulas, the cost metric is for example average runtime or number of unsolved instances. So, the goal is to select a well-performing SAT solver for each individual instance. In the same way, algorithm selection can be applied to many other N P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {NP}}} -hard problems (such as mixed integer programming, CSP, AI planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and answer set programming). Competition-winning systems in SAT are SATzilla, 3S and CSHC === Machine learning === In machine learning, algorithm selection is better known as meta-learning. The portfolio of algorithms consists of machine learning algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, SVM, DNN), the instances are data sets and the cost metric is for example the error rate. So, the goal is to predict which machine learning algorithm will have a small error on each data set. == Instance features == The algorithm selection problem is mainly solved with machine learning techniques. By representing the problem instances by numerical features f {\displaystyle f} , algorithm selection can be seen as a multi-class classification problem by learning a mapping f i ↦ A {\displaystyle f_{i}\mapsto {\mathcal {A}}} for a given instance i {\displaystyle i} . Instance features are numerical representations of instances. For example, we can count the number of variables, clauses, average clause length for Boolean formulas, or number of samples, features, class balance for ML data sets to get an impression about their characteristics. === Static vs. probing features === We distinguish between two kinds of features: Static features are in most cases some counts and statistics (e.g., clauses-to-variables ratio in SAT). These features ranges from very cheap features (e.g. number of variables) to very complex features (e.g., statistics about variable-clause graphs). Probing features (sometimes also called landmarking features) are computed by running some analysis of algorithm behavior on an instance (e.g., accuracy of a cheap decision tree algorithm on an ML data set, or running for a short time a stochastic local search solver on a Boolean formula). These feature often cost more than simple static features. === Feature costs === Depending on the used performance metric m {\displaystyle m} , feature computation can be associated with costs. For example, if we use running time as performance metric, we include the time to compute our instance features into the performance of an algorithm selection system. SAT solving is a concrete example, where such feature costs cannot be neglected, since instance features for CNF formulas can be either very cheap (e.g., to get the number of variables can be done in constant time for CNFs in the DIMACs format) or very expensive (e.g., graph features which can cost tens or hundreds of seconds). It is important to take the overhead of feature computation into account in practice in such scenarios; otherwise a misleading impression of the performance of the algorithm selection approach is created. For example, if the decision which algorithm to choose can be made with perfect accuracy, but the features are the running time of the portfolio algorithms, there is no benefit to the portfolio approach. This would not be obvious if feature costs were omitted. == Approaches == === Regression approach === One of the first successful algorithm selection approaches predicted the performance of each algorithm m ^ A : I → R {\displaystyle {\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}:{\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } and selected the algorithm with the best predicted performance a r g min A ∈ P m ^ A ( i ) {\displaystyle arg\min _{{\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}}{\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}(i)} for an instance i {\displaystyle i} . === Clustering approach === A common assumption is that the given set of instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} can be clustered into homogeneous subsets and for each of these subsets, there is one well-performing algorithm for all instances in there. So, the training consists of identifying the homogeneous clusters via an unsupervised clustering approach and associating an algorithm with each cluster. A new instance is assigned to a cluster and the associated algorithm selected. A more modern approach is cost-sensitive hierarchical clustering using supervised learning to identify the homogeneous instance subsets. === Pairwise cost-sensitive classification approach === A common approach for multi-class classification is to learn pairwise models between every pair of classes (here algorithms) and choose the class that was predicted most often by the pairwise models. We can weight the instances of the pairwise prediction problem by the performance difference between the two algorithms. This is motivated by the fact that we care most about getting predictions with large differences correct, but the penalty for an incorrect prediction is small if there is almost no performance difference. Therefore, each instance i {\displaystyle i} for training a classification model A 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{1}} vs A 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{2}} is associated with a cost | m ( A 1 , i ) − m ( A 2 , i ) | {\displaystyle |m({\mathcal {A}}_{1},i)-m({\mathcal {A}}_{2},i)|} . == Requirements == The algorithm selection problem can be effectively applied under the following assumptions: The portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms is complementary with respect to the instance set I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} , i.e., there is no single algorithm A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} that dominates the performance of all other algorithms over I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} (see figures to the right for examples on complementary analysis). In some application, the computation of instance features is associated with a cost. For example, if the cost metric is running time, we have also to consider the time to compute the instance features. In such cases, the cost to compute features should not be larger than the performance gain through algorithm selection. == Application domains == Algorithm selection is not limited to single domains but can be applied to any kind of algorithm if the above requirements are satisfied. Application domains include: hard combinatorial problems: SAT, Mixed Integer Programming, CSP, AI Planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and Answer Set Programming combinatorial auctions in machine learning, the problem is known as meta-learning software design black-box optimization multi-agent systems numerical optimization linear algebra, differential equations evolutionary algorithms vehicle routing problem power systems For an extensive list of literature about algorithm selection, we refer to a literature overview. == Variants of algorithm selection == === Online selection === Online algorithm selection refers to switching between different algorithms during the solving process. This is useful as a hyper-heuristic. In contrast, offline algorithm selection selects an algorithm for a given instance only once and before the solving process. === Computation of schedules === An extension of algorithm selection is the per-instance algorithm scheduling problem, in which we do not select only one solver, but we select a time budget for each algorithm
Read more →
One-shot learning (computer vision)

One-shot learning is an object categorization problem, found mostly in computer vision. Whereas most machine learning-based object categorization algorithms require training on hundreds or thousands of examples, one-shot learning aims to classify objects from one, or only a few, examples. The term few-shot learning is also used for these problems, especially when more than one example is needed. == Motivation == The ability to learn object categories from few examples, and at a rapid pace, has been demonstrated in humans. It is estimated that a child learns almost all of the 10 ~ 30 thousand object categories in the world by age six. This is due not only to the human mind's computational power, but also to its ability to synthesize and learn new object categories from existing information about different, previously learned categories. Given two examples from two object categories: one, an unknown object composed of familiar shapes, the second, an unknown, amorphous shape; it is much easier for humans to recognize the former than the latter, suggesting that humans make use of previously learned categories when learning new ones. The key motivation for solving one-shot learning is that systems, like humans, can use knowledge about object categories to classify new objects. == Background == As with most classification schemes, one-shot learning involves three main challenges: Representation: How should objects and categories be described? Learning: How can such descriptions be created? Recognition: How can a known object be filtered from enveloping clutter, irrespective of occlusion, viewpoint, and lighting? One-shot learning differs from single object recognition and standard category recognition algorithms in its emphasis on knowledge transfer, which makes use of previously learned categories. Model parameters: Reuses model parameters, based on the similarity between old and new categories. Categories are first learned on numerous training examples, then new categories are learned using transformations of model parameters from those initial categories or selecting relevant parameters for a classifier. Feature sharing: Shares parts or features of objects across categories. One algorithm extracts "diagnostic information" in patches from already learned categories by maximizing the patches' mutual information, and then applies these features to the learning of a new category. A dog category, for example, may be learned in one shot from previous knowledge of horse and cow categories, because dog objects may contain similar distinguishing patches. Contextual information: Appeals to global knowledge of the scene in which the object appears. Such global information can be used as frequency distributions in a conditional random field framework to recognize objects. Alternatively context can consider camera height and scene geometry. Algorithms of this type have two advantages. First, they learn object categories that are relatively dissimilar; and second, they perform well in ad hoc situations where an image has not been hand-cropped and aligned. == Theory == The Bayesian one-shot learning algorithm represents the foreground and background of images as parametrized by a mixture of constellation models. During the learning phase, the parameters of these models are learned using a conjugate density parameter posterior and variational Bayesian expectation–maximization (VBEM). In this stage the previously learned object categories inform the choice of model parameters via transfer by contextual information. For object recognition on new images, the posterior obtained during the learning phase is used in a Bayesian decision framework to estimate the ratio of p(object | test, train) to p(background clutter | test, train) where p is the probability of the outcome. === Bayesian framework === Given the task of finding a particular object in a query image, the overall objective of the Bayesian one-shot learning algorithm is to compare the probability that object is present vs the probability that only background clutter is present. If the former probability is higher, the algorithm reports the object's presence, otherwise the algorithm reports its absence. To compute these probabilities, the object class must be modeled from a set of (1 ~ 5) training images containing examples. To formalize these ideas, let I {\displaystyle I} be the query image, which contains either an example of the foreground category O f g {\displaystyle O_{fg}} or only background clutter of a generic background category O b g {\displaystyle O_{bg}} . Also let I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} be the set of training images used as the foreground category. The decision of whether I {\displaystyle I} contains an object from the foreground category, or only clutter from the background category is: R = p ( O f g | I , I t ) p ( O b g | I , I t ) = p ( I | I t , O f g ) p ( O f g ) p ( I | I t , O b g ) p ( O b g ) , {\displaystyle R={\frac {p(O_{fg}|I,I_{t})}{p(O_{bg}|I,I_{t})}}={\frac {p(I|I_{t},O_{fg})p(O_{fg})}{p(I|I_{t},O_{bg})p(O_{bg})}},} where the class posteriors p ( O f g | I , I t ) {\displaystyle p(O_{fg}|I,I_{t})} and p ( O b g | I , I t ) {\displaystyle p(O_{bg}|I,I_{t})} have been expanded by Bayes' theorem, yielding a ratio of likelihoods and a ratio of object category priors. We decide that the image I {\displaystyle I} contains an object from the foreground class if R {\displaystyle R} exceeds a certain threshold T {\displaystyle T} . We next introduce parametric models for the foreground and background categories with parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } and θ b g {\displaystyle \theta _{bg}} respectively. This foreground parametric model is learned during the learning stage from I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} , as well as prior information of learned categories. The background model we assume to be uniform across images. Omitting the constant ratio of category priors, p ( O f g ) p ( O b g ) {\displaystyle {\frac {p(O_{fg})}{p(O_{bg})}}} , and parametrizing over θ {\displaystyle \theta } and θ b g {\displaystyle \theta _{bg}} yields R ∝ ∫ p ( I | θ , O f g ) p ( θ | I t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( I | θ b g , O b g ) p ( θ b g | I t , O b g ) d θ b g = ∫ p ( I | θ ) p ( θ | I t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( I | θ b g ) p ( θ b g | I t , O b g ) d θ b g {\displaystyle R\propto {\frac {\int {p(I|\theta ,O_{fg})p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(I|\theta _{bg},O_{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|I_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}={\frac {\int {p(I|\theta )p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(I|\theta _{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|I_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}} , having simplified p ( I | θ , O f g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta ,O_{fg})} and p ( I | θ , O b g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta ,O_{bg})} to p ( I | θ f g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta _{fg})} and p ( I | θ b g ) . {\displaystyle p(I|\theta _{bg}).} The posterior distribution of model parameters given the training images, p ( θ | I t , O f g ) {\displaystyle p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})} is estimated in the learning phase. In this estimation, one-shot learning differs sharply from more traditional Bayesian estimation models that approximate the integral as δ ( θ M L ) {\displaystyle \delta (\theta ^{ML})} . Instead, it uses a variational approach using prior information from previously learned categories. However, the traditional maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameters is used for the background model and the categories learned in advance through training. === Object category model === For each query image I {\displaystyle I} and training images I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} , a constellation model is used for representation. To obtain this model for a given image I {\displaystyle I} , first a set of N interesting regions is detected in the image using the Kadir–Brady saliency detector. Each region selected is represented by a location in the image, X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} and a description of its appearance, A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} . Letting X = ∑ i = 1 N X i , A = ∑ i = 1 N A i {\displaystyle X=\sum _{i=1}^{N}X_{i},A=\sum _{i=1}^{N}A_{i}} and X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} and A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} the analogous representations for training images, the expression for R becomes: R ∝ ∫ p ( X , A | θ , O f g ) p ( θ | X t , A t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( X , A | θ b g , O b g ) p ( θ b g | X t , A t , O b g ) d θ b g = ∫ p ( X , A | θ ) p ( θ | X t , A t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( X , A | θ b g ) p ( θ b g | X t , A t , O b g ) d θ b g {\displaystyle R\propto {\frac {\int {p(X,A|\theta ,O_{fg})p(\theta |X_{t},A_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(X,A|\theta _{bg},O_{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|X_{t},A_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}={\frac {\int {p(X,A|\theta )p(\theta |X_{t},A_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(X,A|\theta _{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|X_{t},A_{t},O_{bg})}\,d\theta _{bg}}}} The likelihoods p ( X , A | θ ) {\displaystyle p(X,A|\theta )} and p ( X , A | θ b g ) {\displaystyle p(X,A|\theta _{bg})} are represented as mixtures of constellation models. A typical constellation model has
Read more →
One-class classification

In machine learning, one-class classification (OCC), also known as unary classification or class-modelling, is an approach to the training of binary classifiers in which only examples of one of the two classes are used. Examples include the monitoring of helicopter gearboxes, motor failure prediction, or assessing the operational status of a nuclear plant as 'normal': In such scenarios, there are few, if any, examples of the catastrophic system states – rare outliers – that comprise the second class. Alternatively, the class that is being focused on may cover a small, coherent subset of the data and the training may rely on an information bottleneck approach. In practice, counter-examples from the second class may be used in later rounds of training to further refine the algorithm. == Overview == The term one-class classification (OCC) was coined by Moya & Hush (1996) and many applications can be found in scientific literature, for example outlier detection, anomaly detection, novelty detection. A feature of OCC is that it uses only sample points from the assigned class, so that a representative sampling is not strictly required for non-target classes. == Introduction == SVM based one-class classification (OCC) relies on identifying the smallest hypersphere (with radius r, and center c) consisting of all the data points. This method is called Support Vector Data Description (SVDD). Formally, the problem can be defined in the following constrained optimization form, min r , c r 2 subject to, | | Φ ( x i ) − c | | 2 ≤ r 2 ∀ i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n {\displaystyle \min _{r,c}r^{2}{\text{ subject to, }}||\Phi (x_{i})-c||^{2}\leq r^{2}\;\;\forall i=1,2,...,n} However, the above formulation is highly restrictive, and is sensitive to the presence of outliers. Therefore, a flexible formulation, that allow for the presence of outliers is formulated as shown below, min r , c , ζ r 2 + 1 ν n ∑ i = 1 n ζ i {\displaystyle \min _{r,c,\zeta }r^{2}+{\frac {1}{\nu n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\zeta _{i}} subject to, | | Φ ( x i ) − c | | 2 ≤ r 2 + ζ i ∀ i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n {\displaystyle {\text{subject to, }}||\Phi (x_{i})-c||^{2}\leq r^{2}+\zeta _{i}\;\;\forall i=1,2,...,n} From the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions for optimality, we get c = ∑ i = 1 n α i Φ ( x i ) , {\displaystyle c=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\Phi (x_{i}),} where the α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} 's are the solution to the following optimization problem: max α ∑ i = 1 n α i κ ( x i , x i ) − ∑ i , j = 1 n α i α j κ ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle \max _{\alpha }\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\kappa (x_{i},x_{i})-\sum _{i,j=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\alpha _{j}\kappa (x_{i},x_{j})} subject to, ∑ i = 1 n α i = 1 and 0 ≤ α i ≤ 1 ν n for all i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n . {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}=1{\text{ and }}0\leq \alpha _{i}\leq {\frac {1}{\nu n}}{\text{for all }}i=1,2,...,n.} The introduction of kernel function provide additional flexibility to the One-class SVM (OSVM) algorithm. === PU (Positive Unlabeled) learning === A similar problem is PU learning, in which a binary classifier is constructed by semi-supervised learning from only positive and unlabeled sample points. In PU learning, two sets of examples are assumed to be available for training: the positive set P {\displaystyle P} and a mixed set U {\displaystyle U} , which is assumed to contain both positive and negative samples, but without these being labeled as such. This contrasts with other forms of semisupervised learning, where it is assumed that a labeled set containing examples of both classes is available in addition to unlabeled samples. A variety of techniques exist to adapt supervised classifiers to the PU learning setting, including variants of the EM algorithm. PU learning has been successfully applied to text, time series, bioinformatics tasks, and remote sensing data. == Approaches == Several approaches have been proposed to solve one-class classification (OCC). The approaches can be distinguished into three main categories, density estimation, boundary methods, and reconstruction methods. === Density estimation methods === Density estimation methods rely on estimating the density of the data points, and set the threshold. These methods rely on assuming distributions, such as Gaussian, or a Poisson distribution. Following which discordancy tests can be used to test the new objects. These methods are robust to scale variance. Gaussian model is one of the simplest methods to create one-class classifiers. Due to Central Limit Theorem (CLT), these methods work best when large number of samples are present, and they are perturbed by small independent error values. The probability distribution for a d-dimensional object is given by: p N ( z ; μ ; Σ ) = 1 ( 2 π ) d 2 | Σ | 1 2 exp ⁡ { − 1 2 ( z − μ ) T Σ − 1 ( z − μ ) } {\displaystyle p_{\mathcal {N}}(z;\mu ;\Sigma )={\frac {1}{(2\pi )^{\frac {d}{2}}|\Sigma |^{\frac {1}{2}}}}\exp \left\{-{\frac {1}{2}}(z-\mu )^{T}\Sigma ^{-1}(z-\mu )\right\}} Where, μ {\displaystyle \mu } is the mean and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is the covariance matrix. Computing the inverse of covariance matrix ( Σ − 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{-1}} ) is the costliest operation, and in the cases where the data is not scaled properly, or data has singular directions pseudo-inverse Σ + {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{+}} is used to approximate the inverse, and is calculated as Σ T ( Σ Σ T ) − 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}(\Sigma \Sigma ^{T})^{-1}} . === Boundary methods === Boundary methods focus on setting boundaries around a few set of points, called target points. These methods attempt to optimize the volume. Boundary methods rely on distances, and hence are not robust to scale variance. K-centers method, NN-d, and SVDD are some of the key examples. K-centers In K-center algorithm, k {\displaystyle k} small balls with equal radius are placed to minimize the maximum distance of all minimum distances between training objects and the centers. Formally, the following error is minimized, ε k − c e n t e r = max i ( min k | | x i − μ k | | 2 ) {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k-center}=\max _{i}(\min _{k}||x_{i}-\mu _{k}||^{2})} The algorithm uses forward search method with random initialization, where the radius is determined by the maximum distance of the object, any given ball should capture. After the centers are determined, for any given test object z {\displaystyle z} the distance can be calculated as, d k − c e n t r ( z ) = min k | | z − μ k | | 2 {\displaystyle d_{k-centr}(z)=\min _{k}||z-\mu _{k}||^{2}} === Reconstruction methods === Reconstruction methods use prior knowledge and generating process to build a generating model that best fits the data. New objects can be described in terms of a state of the generating model. Some examples of reconstruction methods for OCC are, k-means clustering, learning vector quantization, self-organizing maps, etc. == Applications == === Document classification === The basic Support Vector Machine (SVM) paradigm is trained using both positive and negative examples, however studies have shown there are many valid reasons for using only positive examples. When the SVM algorithm is modified to only use positive examples, the process is considered one-class classification. One situation where this type of classification might prove useful to the SVM paradigm is in trying to identify a web browser's sites of interest based only off of the user's browsing history. === Biomedical studies === One-class classification can be particularly useful in biomedical studies where often data from other classes can be difficult or impossible to obtain. In studying biomedical data it can be difficult and/or expensive to obtain the set of labeled data from the second class that would be necessary to perform a two-class classification. A study from The Scientific World Journal found that the typicality approach is the most useful in analysing biomedical data because it can be applied to any type of dataset (continuous, discrete, or nominal). The typicality approach is based on the clustering of data by examining data and placing it into new or existing clusters. To apply typicality to one-class classification for biomedical studies, each new observation, y 0 {\displaystyle y_{0}} , is compared to the target class, C {\displaystyle C} , and identified as an outlier or a member of the target class. === Unsupervised Concept Drift Detection === One-class classification has similarities with unsupervised concept drift detection, where both aim to identify whether the unseen data share similar characteristics to the initial data. A concept is referred to as the fixed probability distribution which data is drawn from. In unsupervised concept drift detection, the goal is to detect if the data distribution changes without utilizing class labels. In one-class classification, the flow of data is not important. Unseen data is classified as typical or outlier depending on its characteristics, whether it is from the initi
Read more →
Determining the number of clusters in a data set

Determining the number of clusters in a data set, a quantity often labelled k as in the k-means algorithm, is a frequent problem in data clustering, and is a distinct issue from the process of actually solving the clustering problem. For a certain class of clustering algorithms (in particular k-means, k-medoids and expectation–maximization algorithm), there is a parameter commonly referred to as k that specifies the number of clusters to detect. Other algorithms such as DBSCAN and OPTICS algorithm do not require the specification of this parameter; hierarchical clustering avoids the problem altogether. The correct choice of k is often ambiguous, with interpretations depending on the shape and scale of the distribution of points in a data set and the desired clustering resolution of the user. In addition, increasing k without penalty will always reduce the amount of error in the resulting clustering, to the extreme case of zero error if each data point is considered its own cluster (i.e., when k equals the number of data points, n). Intuitively then, the optimal choice of k will strike a balance between maximum compression of the data using a single cluster, and maximum accuracy by assigning each data point to its own cluster. If an appropriate value of k is not apparent from prior knowledge of the properties of the data set, it must be chosen somehow. There are several categories of methods for making this decision. == Elbow method == The elbow method looks at the percentage of explained variance as a function of the number of clusters: One should choose a number of clusters so that adding another cluster does not give much better modeling of the data. More precisely, if one plots the percentage of variance explained by the clusters against the number of clusters, the first clusters will add much information (explain a lot of variance), but at some point the marginal gain will drop, giving an angle in the graph. The number of clusters is chosen at this point, hence the "elbow criterion". In most datasets, this "elbow" is ambiguous, making this method subjective and unreliable. Because the scale of the axes is arbitrary, the concept of an angle is not well-defined, and even on uniform random data, the curve produces an "elbow", making the method rather unreliable. Percentage of variance explained is the ratio of the between-group variance to the total variance, also known as an F-test. A slight variation of this method plots the curvature of the within group variance. The method can be traced to speculation by Robert L. Thorndike in 1953. While the idea of the elbow method sounds simple and straightforward, other methods (as detailed below) give better results. == X-means clustering == In statistics and data mining, X-means clustering is a variation of k-means clustering that refines cluster assignments by repeatedly attempting subdivision, and keeping the best resulting splits, until a criterion such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC) or Bayesian information criterion (BIC) is reached. == Information criterion approach == Another set of methods for determining the number of clusters are information criteria, such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), or the deviance information criterion (DIC) — if it is possible to make a likelihood function for the clustering model. For example: The k-means model is "almost" a Gaussian mixture model and one can construct a likelihood for the Gaussian mixture model and thus also determine information criterion values. == Information–theoretic approach == Rate distortion theory has been applied to choosing k called the "jump" method, which determines the number of clusters that maximizes efficiency while minimizing error by information-theoretic standards. The strategy of the algorithm is to generate a distortion curve for the input data by running a standard clustering algorithm such as k-means for all values of k between 1 and n, and computing the distortion (described below) of the resulting clustering. The distortion curve is then transformed by a negative power chosen based on the dimensionality of the data. Jumps in the resulting values then signify reasonable choices for k, with the largest jump representing the best choice. The distortion of a clustering of some input data is formally defined as follows: Let the data set be modeled as a p-dimensional random variable, X, consisting of a mixture distribution of G components with common covariance, Γ. If we let c 1 … c K {\displaystyle c_{1}\ldots c_{K}} be a set of K cluster centers, with c X {\displaystyle c_{X}} the closest center to a given sample of X, then the minimum average distortion per dimension when fitting the K centers to the data is: d K = 1 p min c 1 … c K E [ ( X − c X ) T Γ − 1 ( X − c X ) ] {\displaystyle d_{K}={\frac {1}{p}}\min _{c_{1}\ldots c_{K}}{E[(X-c_{X})^{T}\Gamma ^{-1}(X-c_{X})]}} This is also the average Mahalanobis distance per dimension between X and the closest cluster center c X {\displaystyle c_{X}} . Because the minimization over all possible sets of cluster centers is prohibitively complex, the distortion is computed in practice by generating a set of cluster centers using a standard clustering algorithm and computing the distortion using the result. The pseudo-code for the jump method with an input set of p-dimensional data points X is: JumpMethod(X): Let Y = (p/2) Init a list D, of size n+1 Let D[0] = 0 For k = 1 ... n: Cluster X with k clusters (e.g., with k-means) Let d = Distortion of the resulting clustering D[k] = d^(-Y) Define J(i) = D[i] - D[i-1] Return the k between 1 and n that maximizes J(k) The choice of the transform power Y = ( p / 2 ) {\displaystyle Y=(p/2)} is motivated by asymptotic reasoning using results from rate distortion theory. Let the data X have a single, arbitrarily p-dimensional Gaussian distribution, and let fixed K = ⌊ α p ⌋ {\displaystyle K=\lfloor \alpha ^{p}\rfloor } , for some α greater than zero. Then the distortion of a clustering of K clusters in the limit as p goes to infinity is α − 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ^{-2}} . It can be seen that asymptotically, the distortion of a clustering to the power ( − p / 2 ) {\displaystyle (-p/2)} is proportional to α p {\displaystyle \alpha ^{p}} , which by definition is approximately the number of clusters K. In other words, for a single Gaussian distribution, increasing K beyond the true number of clusters, which should be one, causes a linear growth in distortion. This behavior is important in the general case of a mixture of multiple distribution components. Let X be a mixture of G p-dimensional Gaussian distributions with common covariance. Then for any fixed K less than G, the distortion of a clustering as p goes to infinity is infinite. Intuitively, this means that a clustering of less than the correct number of clusters is unable to describe asymptotically high-dimensional data, causing the distortion to increase without limit. If, as described above, K is made an increasing function of p, namely, K = ⌊ α p ⌋ {\displaystyle K=\lfloor \alpha ^{p}\rfloor } , the same result as above is achieved, with the value of the distortion in the limit as p goes to infinity being equal to α − 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ^{-2}} . Correspondingly, there is the same proportional relationship between the transformed distortion and the number of clusters, K. Putting the results above together, it can be seen that for sufficiently high values of p, the transformed distortion d K − p / 2 {\displaystyle d_{K}^{-p/2}} is approximately zero for K < G, then jumps suddenly and begins increasing linearly for K ≥ G. The jump algorithm for choosing K makes use of these behaviors to identify the most likely value for the true number of clusters. Although the mathematical support for the method is given in terms of asymptotic results, the algorithm has been empirically verified to work well in a variety of data sets with reasonable dimensionality. In addition to the localized jump method described above, there exists a second algorithm for choosing K using the same transformed distortion values known as the broken line method. The broken line method identifies the jump point in the graph of the transformed distortion by doing a simple least squares error line fit of two line segments, which in theory will fall along the x-axis for K < G, and along the linearly increasing phase of the transformed distortion plot for K ≥ G. The broken line method is more robust than the jump method in that its decision is global rather than local, but it also relies on the assumption of Gaussian mixture components, whereas the jump method is fully non-parametric and has been shown to be viable for general mixture distributions. == Silhouette method == The average silhouette of the data is another useful criterion for assessing the natural number of clusters. The silhouette of a data instance is a measure of how closely it is match
Read more →
INDIAai

INDIAai is a web portal launched by the Government of India on 07 March 2024 for artificial intelligence-related developments in India. It is known as the National AI Portal of India, which was jointly started by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the National e-Governance Division (NeGD) and the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) with support from the Department of School Education and Literacy (DoSE&L) and Ministry of Human Resource Development. == History == The portal was launched on 30 May 2020, by Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Union Minister for Electronics and IT, Law and Justice and Communications, on the first anniversary of the second tenure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government. A national program for the youth, 'Responsible AI for Youth', was also launched on the same day. As of 2022, the website was visited by more than 4.5 lakh users with 1.2 million page views. It has 1151 articles on artificial intelligence, 701 news stories, 98 reports, 95 case studies and 213 videos on its portal. It maintains a database on AI ecosystem of India featuring 121 government initiatives and 281 startups. In May 2022, INDIAai released a book titled 'AI for Everyone' that covers the basics of AI. Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has approved the comprehensive national-level IndiaAI mission with a budget outlay of Rs.10,371.92 crore. The Mission will be implemented by ‘IndiaAI’ Independent Business Division (IBD) under Digital India Corporation (DIC). == Objective and features == It aims to function as a one-stop portal for all AI-related development in India. The platform publishes resources such as articles, news, interviews, and investment funding news and events for AI startups, AI companies, and educational firms related to artificial intelligence in India. It also distributes documents, case studies, and research reports. Additionally, the platform provides education and employment opportunities related to AI. It offers AI courses, both free and paid.
Read more →
Information Harvesting

Information Harvesting (IH) was an early data mining product from the 1990s. It was invented by Ralphe Wiggins and produced by the Ryan Corp, later Information Harvesting Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Wiggins had a background in genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic. IH sought to infer rules from sets of data. It did this first by classifying various input variables into one of a number of bins, thereby putting some structure on the continuous variables in the input. IH then proceeds to generate rules, trading off generalization against memorization, that will infer the value of the prediction variable, possibly creating many levels of rules in the process. It included strategies for checking if overfitting took place and, if so, correcting for it. Because of its strategies for correcting for overfitting by considering more data, and refining the rules based on that data, IH might also be considered to be a form of machine learning. The advantage of IH, as compared with other data mining products of its time and even later, was that it provided a mechanism for finding multiple rules that would classify the data and determining, according to set criteria, the best rules to use.
Read more →
Witness set

In combinatorics and computational learning theory, a witness set is a set of elements that distinguishes a given Boolean function from a given class of other Boolean functions. Let C {\displaystyle C} be a concept class over a domain X {\displaystyle X} (that is, a family of Boolean functions over X {\displaystyle X} ) and c {\displaystyle c} be a concept in X {\displaystyle X} (a single Boolean function). A subset S {\displaystyle S} of X {\displaystyle X} is a witness set for c {\displaystyle c} in X {\displaystyle X} if S {\displaystyle S} distinguishes c {\displaystyle c} from all the other functions in C {\displaystyle C} , in the sense that no other function in C {\displaystyle C} has the same values on S {\displaystyle S} . For a concept class with | C | {\displaystyle |C|} concepts, there exists a concept that has a witness of size at most log 2 ⁡ | C | {\displaystyle \log _{2}|C|} ; this bound is tight when C {\displaystyle C} consists of all Boolean functions over X {\displaystyle X} . By a result of Bondy (1972) there exists a single witness set of size at most | C | − 1 {\displaystyle |C|-1} that is valid for all concepts in C {\displaystyle C} ; this bound is tight when C {\displaystyle C} consists of the indicator functions of the empty set and some singleton sets. One way to construct this set is to interpret the concepts as bitstrings, and the domain elements as positions in these bitstrings. Then the set of positions at which a trie of the bitstrings branches forms the desired witness set. This construction is central to the operation of the fusion tree data structure. The minimum size of a witness set for c {\displaystyle c} is called the witness size or specification number and is denoted by w C ( c ) {\displaystyle w_{C}(c)} . The value max { w C ( c ) : c ∈ C } {\displaystyle \max\{w_{C}(c):c\in C\}} is called the teaching dimension of C {\displaystyle C} . It represents the number of examples of a concept that need to be presented by a teacher to a learner, in the worst case, to enable the learner to determine which concept is being presented. Witness sets have also been called teaching sets, keys, specifying sets, or discriminants. The "witness set" terminology is from Kushilevitz et al. (1996), who trace the concept of witness sets to work by Cover (1965).
Read more →
KXEN Inc.

KXEN was an American software company which existed from 1998 to 2013 when it was acquired by SAP AG. == History == KXEN was founded in June 1998 by Roger Haddad and Michel Bera. It was based in San Francisco, California with offices in Paris and London. On September 10, 2013, SAP AG announced plans to acquire KXEN. On October 1, 2013, a letter to KXEN customers announced the acquisition closed. KXEN primarily marketed predictive analytics software. == Predictive analytics == InfiniteInsight is a predictive modeling suite developed by KXEN that assists analytic professionals, and business executives to extract information from data. Among other functions, InfiniteInsight is used for variable importance, classification, regression, segmentation, time series, product recommendation, as described and expressed by the Java Data Mining interface, and for social network analysis. InfiniteInsight allows prediction of a behavior or a value, the forecast of a time series or the understanding of a group of individuals with similar behavior. Advanced functions include behavioral modeling, exporting the model code into different target environments or building predictive models on top of SAS or SPSS data files. Competitors are SAS Enterprise Miner, IBM SPSS Modeler, and Statistica. Open source predictive tools like the R package or Weka are also competitors, since they provide similar features free of charge.
Read more →
Reference Software International

Reference Software International, Inc. (RSI), was an American software developer active from 1985 to 1993 and based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and San Francisco, California. The company released several productivity and reference software packages, including the Grammatik grammar checker, for MS-DOS. The company was acquired by WordPerfect Corporation in 1993. == History == === Background (1980–1985) === Reference Software International, Inc., was founded by Donald "Don" Emery and Bruce Wampler in 1985 in San Francisco, California. Both Wampler and Emery were college professors when they founded RSI: Wampler at the University of New Mexico as a professor of computer science and Emery a professor of marketing at San Francisco State University. After graduating from the University of Utah in around 1978, Wampler founded his first software company, Aspen Software, in Tijeras, New Mexico, in 1979. Wampler founded Aspen to develop an early spell checker software package, called Proofreader, for the TRS-80, licensing Random House's Webster's Unabridged Dictionary for the package's lexicon. In 1980, he began development on a grammar checker inspired by Writer's Workbench, a pioneering grammar checker for Unix systems. Wampler used Writer's Workbench heavily during the writer of his doctoral dissertation but disliked having to jump between the Apple II on which he composed the dissertation and the mainframe on which Writer's Workbench ran, and so wanted to develop a version of the latter for microcomputers. Wampler's work came to fruition as Grammatik in 1981, eventually ported to several other microcomputer platforms in the early 1980s. In 1983, by which point the company had 12 employees and sold a combined 80,000 units of Grammatik and Proofreader, Wampler sold Aspen to Dictronics, a software company best known for developing the Electronic Thesaurus, an early thesaurus program for microcomputers. Dictronics was in turn purchased by Wang Laboratories; according to Wampler, "Wang bought [Aspen] and sat on it. They did nothing with it". Wampler moved on to teach for the University of New Mexico, but, frustrated by Wang's inaction, got the urge to resurrect his work. In 1985, he was able to license back Grammatik and Proofreader from a small California-based software firm that had grandfathered rights to a forked version of both. In the same year, he met Emery, who, impressed by Wampler's, founded Reference Software International to market his software. RSI's research and development headquarters were based in Albuquerque, while the company's sales and marketing department was based in Walnut Creek, California. === Success (1985–1992) === In August 1985, RSI released their first product: the Random House Reference Set, a new version of Proofreader for the IBM Personal Computer and compatibles, revised to be a terminate-and-stay-resident program that ran atop other word processors such as WordStar or WordPerfect. At the time, Reference Set was the only such program on the market that functioned like this. RSI netted $114,000 from sales of Reference Set by the end of 1985. In June 1986, they released version 2.0 of Grammatik as Grammatik II for the PC. The latter was a breakout hit for RSI, receiving praise in the press (including technology journals such as PC Magazine) and RSI selling 1,000 units a month. In spring 1987, they released Reference Set II, which allowed users to import their own words into the built-in dictionary and added a thesaurus of 300,000 words. In November 1987, they released version 3.0 of Reference Set, which comprised two new field-specific dictionaries for the medical and legal professions. As well as the general Random House dictionary and thesaurus, it included Stedman's Medical Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary. Emery consulted Paul Brest and Bob Jackson—professors of law at Stanford Law School and San Francisco State respectively—for the curation of the law dictionary; and Burton Grebin—at the time the executive director of Mount Saint Mary's Hospital—for the curation of the medical dictionary. In fall 1988, the company released Grammatik III, a total rewrite that made use of artificial intelligence to more accurately judge the grammar of sentences by breaking them down into a syntactic hierarchy. Grammatik III received universal acclaim, with Gloria Morris of InfoWorld calling it the apparent leader in the grammar checking field and Sandra Anderson of Mac Home Journal calling it "hands down ... the best of the industry" six years after its release. By 1989, the product had competitors in Correct Grammar by Lifetree Software and RightWriter by Rightsoft, Inc. By 1990, RSI achieved annual sales of $9.7 million. In the same year they released Grammatik IV, which was the first to offer direct integration with WordPerfect on both MS-DOS and Windows. In March 1992—by which point RSI had sold 1.5 million copies of Grammatik across all versions—the company released version 5 of the program, another rewrite that updated the lexicon further and added new functions such as word redundancy detection. Around the same time, the company introduced Easy Proof, a pared-down version of Grammatik intended for novice writers, students, and family computers. In 1991, the company was engaged in a trademark dispute with Systems Compatibility Corporation (SCC) of Chicago, Illinois, over the rights to the Software Toolkit title. Both companies had published software bundles bearing the name in the turn of the 1990s; SCC had published theirs first in 1988 and registered the trademark with the USPTO. SCC was granted a restraining order against RSI in January 1991. The following month, RSI agreed to rename their product, preventing a protracted legal battle. === Decline and acquisition (1992–1993) === By early 1992, RSI achieved annual sales of more than $13 million, employed 120 people, and had opened international offices in London, Belgium, and Antwerp to sell foreign versions of Reference Set and Grammatik. The company reached peak employment in the middle of 1992, with 140 employees. However, RSI's launch of six disparate titles in the year proved problematic for the company when they failed to sell as well as they had projected, and the company laid off employees by the dozens. By December 1992, only 71 employees were left, 32 from their San Francisco office. On the last day of 1992, RSI received an acquisition offer from WordPerfect Corporation, makers of the namesake word processor based in Orem, Utah. The deal was inked in January 1993, RSI's stakeholders receiving $19 million. The company's remaining employees were absorbed into WordPerfect in Orem. WordPerfect continued selling Grammatik as a standalone product for several years.
Read more →
Multi-surface method

The multi-surface method (MSM) is a form of decision making using the concept of piecewise-linear separability of datasets to categorize data. == Introduction == Two datasets are linearly separable if their convex hulls do not intersect. The method may be formulated as a feedforward neural network with weights that are trained via linear programming. Comparisons between neural networks trained with the MSM versus backpropagation show MSM is better able to classify data. The decision problem associated linear program for the MSM is NP-complete. == Mathematical formulation == Given two finite disjoint point sets A , B ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A,B}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , find a discriminant, f : R n → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } such that f ( A ) > 0 , f ( B ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle f({\mathcal {A}})>0,f({\mathcal {B}})\leq 0} . If the intersection of convex hulls of the two sets is the empty set, then it is possible to use a single linear program to obtain a linear discriminant of the form, f ( x ) = c x + γ {\displaystyle f(x)=cx+\gamma } . Usually, in real applications, the sets' convex hulls do intersect, and a (often non-convex) piecewise-linear discriminant can be used, through the use of several linear programs.
Read more →
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 value." A precondition is simply a logical conjunction of conditions. Evaluation of a rule involves a pair of nested if statements: 1 if (precondition) 2 if (condition) 3 return score_one 4 else 5 return score_two 6 end if 7 else 8 return 0 9 end if Several auxiliary functions are also required by the algorithm: W + ( c ) {\displaystyle W_{+}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all positively labeled examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} W − ( c ) {\displaystyle W_{-}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all negatively labeled examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} W ( c ) = W + ( c ) + W − ( c ) {\displaystyle W(c)=W_{+}(c)+W_{-}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} The algorithm is as follows: 1 function ad_tree 2 input Set of m training instances 3 4 wi = 1/m for all i 5 a = 1 2 ln W + ( t r u e ) W − ( t r u e ) {\displaystyle a={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(true)}{W_{-}(true)}}} 6 R0 = a rule with scores a and 0, precondition "true" and condition "true." 7 P = { t r u e } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}=\{true\}} 8 C = {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}=} the set of all possible conditions 9 for j = 1 … T {\displaystyle j=1\dots T} 10 p ∈ P , c ∈ C {\displaystyle p\in {\mathcal {P}},c\in {\mathcal {C}}} get values that minimize z = 2 ( W + ( p ∧ c ) W − ( p ∧ c ) + W + ( p ∧ ¬ c ) W − ( p ∧ ¬ c ) ) + W ( ¬ p ) {\displaystyle z=2\left({\sqrt {W_{+}(p\wedge c)W_{-}(p\wedge c)}}+{\sqrt {W_{+}(p\wedge \neg c)W_{-}(p\wedge \neg c)}}\right)+W(\neg p)} 11 P + = p ∧ c + p ∧ ¬ c {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}+=p\wedge c+p\wedge \neg c} 12 a 1 = 1 2 ln W + ( p ∧ c ) + 1 W − ( p ∧ c ) + 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(p\wedge c)+1}{W_{-}(p\wedge c)+1}}} 13 a 2 = 1 2 ln W + ( p ∧ ¬ c ) + 1 W − ( p ∧ ¬ c ) + 1 {\displaystyle a_{2}={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(p\wedge \neg c)+1}{W_{-}(p\wedge \neg c)+1}}} 14 Rj = new rule with precondition p, condition c, and weights a1 and a2 15 w i = w i e − y i R j ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}=w_{i}e^{-y_{i}R_{j}(x_{i})}} 16 end for 17 return set of Rj The set P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} grows by two preconditions in each iteration, and it is possible to derive the tree structure of a set of rules by making note of the precondition that is used in each successive rule. == Empirical results == Figure 6 in the original paper demonstrates that ADTrees are typically as robust as boosted decision trees and boosted decision stumps. Typically, equivalent accuracy can be achieved with a much simpler tree structure than recursive partitioning algorithms.
Read more →
Latent class model

In statistics, a latent class model (LCM) is a model for clustering multivariate discrete data. It assumes that the data arise from a mixture of discrete distributions, within each of which the variables are independent. It is called a latent class model because the class to which each data point belongs is unobserved (or latent). Latent class analysis (LCA) is a subset of structural equation modeling used to find groups or subtypes of cases in multivariate categorical data. These groups or subtypes of cases are called "latent classes". When faced with the following situation, a researcher might opt to use LCA to better understand the data: Symptoms a, b, c, and d have been recorded in a variety of patients diagnosed with diseases X, Y, and Z. Disease X is associated with symptoms a, b, and c; disease Y is linked to symptoms b, c, and d; and disease Z is connected to symptoms a, c, and d. In this context, the LCA would attempt to detect the presence of latent classes (i.e., the disease entities), thus creating patterns of association in the symptoms. As in factor analysis, LCA can also be used to classify cases according to their maximum likelihood class membership probability. The key criterion for resolving the LCA is identifying latent classes in which the observed symptom associations are effectively rendered null. This is because within each class, the diseases responsible for the symptoms create a structure of dependencies. As a result, the symptoms become conditionally independent, meaning that, given the class a case belongs to, the symptoms are no longer related to one another. == Model == Within each latent class, the observed variables are statistically independent—an essential aspect of latent class modeling. Usually, the observed variables are statistically dependent. By introducing the latent variable, independence is restored in the sense that within classes, variables are independent (local independence). Therefore, the association between the observed variables is explained by the classes of the latent variable (McCutcheon, 1987). In one form, the LCM is written as p i 1 , i 2 , … , i N ≈ ∑ t T p t ∏ n N p i n , t n , {\displaystyle p_{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N}}\approx \sum _{t}^{T}p_{t}\,\prod _{n}^{N}p_{i_{n},t}^{n},} where T {\displaystyle T} is the number of latent classes and p t {\displaystyle p_{t}} are the so-called recruitment or unconditional probabilities that should sum to one. p i n , t n {\displaystyle p_{i_{n},t}^{n}} are the marginal or conditional probabilities. For a two-way latent class model, the form is p i j ≈ ∑ t T p t p i t p j t . {\displaystyle p_{ij}\approx \sum _{t}^{T}p_{t}\,p_{it}\,p_{jt}.} This two-way model is related to probabilistic latent semantic analysis and non-negative matrix factorization. The probability model used in LCA is closely related to the Naive Bayes classifier. The main difference is that in LCA, the class membership of an individual is a latent variable, whereas in Naive Bayes classifiers, the class membership is an observed label. == Related methods == There are a number of methods with distinct names and uses that share a common relationship. Cluster analysis is, like LCA, used to discover taxon-like groups of cases in data. Multivariate mixture estimation (MME) is applicable to continuous data and assumes that such data arise from a mixture of distributions, such as a set of heights arising from a mixture of men and women. If a multivariate mixture estimation is constrained so that measures must be uncorrelated within each distribution, it is termed latent profile analysis. Modified to handle discrete data, this constrained analysis is known as LCA. Discrete latent trait models further constrain the classes to form from segments of a single dimension, allocating members to classes based on that dimension. An example would be assigning cases to social classes based on ability or merit. In a practical instance, the variables could be multiple choice items of a political questionnaire. In this case, the data consists of an N-way contingency table with answers to the items for a number of respondents. In this example, the latent variable refers to political opinion, and the latent classes to political groups. Given group membership, the conditional probabilities specify the chance that certain answers are chosen. == Application == LCA may be used in many fields, such as: collaborative filtering, Behavior Genetics and Evaluation of diagnostic tests.
Read more →
Software engine

A software engine is a core component of a complex software system. The word "engine" is a metaphor of a car's engine. Thus a software engine is a complex subsystem; not unlike how a car engine functions. Software engines work in conjunction with other components of a process or system. They typically have an input and an output, and the productivity is usually linear to running speed. There is no formal guideline for what should be called an engine, but the term has become widespread in the software industry. == Notable examples == === Multi-engine systems === Mainstream web browsers have both a browser engine and a JavaScript engine. Video games are often based on a game engine. Some of these also have specialized physics or graphics engines.
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 →
Logic learning machine

Logic learning machine (LLM) is a machine learning method based on the generation of intelligible rules. LLM is an efficient implementation of the Switching Neural Network (SNN) paradigm, developed by Marco Muselli, Senior Researcher at the Italian National Research Council CNR-IEIIT in Genoa. LLM has been employed in many different sectors, including the field of medicine (orthopedic patient classification, DNA micro-array analysis and Clinical Decision Support Systems), financial services and supply chain management. == History == The Switching Neural Network approach was developed in the 1990s to overcome the drawbacks of the most commonly used machine learning methods. In particular, black box methods, such as multilayer perceptron and support vector machine, had good accuracy but could not provide deep insight into the studied phenomenon. On the other hand, decision trees were able to describe the phenomenon but often lacked accuracy. Switching Neural Networks made use of Boolean algebra to build sets of intelligible rules able to obtain very good performance. In 2014, an efficient version of Switching Neural Network was developed and implemented in the Rulex suite with the name Logic Learning Machine. Also, an LLM version devoted to regression problems was developed. == General == Like other machine learning methods, LLM uses data to build a model able to perform a good forecast about future behaviors. LLM starts from a table including a target variable (output) and some inputs and generates a set of rules that return the output value y {\displaystyle y} corresponding to a given configuration of inputs. A rule is written in the form: if premise then consequence where consequence contains the output value whereas premise includes one or more conditions on the inputs. According to the input type, conditions can have different forms: for categorical variables the input value must be in a given subset: x 1 ∈ { A , B , C , . . . } {\displaystyle x_{1}\in \{A,B,C,...\}} . for ordered variables the condition is written as an inequality or an interval: x 2 ≤ α {\displaystyle x_{2}\leq \alpha } or β ≤ x 3 ≤ γ {\displaystyle \beta \leq x_{3}\leq \gamma } A possible rule is therefore in the form if x 1 ∈ { A , B , C , . . . } {\displaystyle x_{1}\in \{A,B,C,...\}} AND x 2 ≤ α {\displaystyle x_{2}\leq \alpha } AND β ≤ x 3 ≤ γ {\displaystyle \beta \leq x_{3}\leq \gamma } then y = y ¯ {\displaystyle y={\bar {y}}} == Types == According to the output type, different versions of the Logic Learning Machine have been developed: Logic Learning Machine for classification, when the output is a categorical variable, which can assume values in a finite set Logic Learning Machine for regression, when the output is an integer or real number.
Read more →