Isabelle Guyon (French pronunciation: [izabɛl ɡɥijɔ̃]; born August 15, 1961) is a French-born researcher in machine learning known for her work on support-vector machines, artificial neural networks and bioinformatics. She is a Chair Professor at the University of Paris-Saclay. Guyon serves as the Director of Research at Google DeepMind since October 2022. She is considered to be a pioneer in the field, with her contribution to the support-vector machines with Vladimir Vapnik and Bernhard Boser. == Biography == After graduating from the French engineering school ESPCI Paris in 1985, she joined the group of Gerard Dreyfus at the Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie to do a PhD on neural networks architectures and training. Guyon defended her thesis in 1988 and was hired the year after at AT&T Bell Laboratories, first as a post-doc, then as a group leader. She worked at Bell Labs for six years, where she explored several research areas, from neural networks to pattern recognition and computational learning theory, with application to handwriting recognition. She collaborated with Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Vladimir Vapnik, Corinna Cortes, Yoshua Bengio, Patrice Simard, and met her future husband, Bernhard Boser. In 1996, Guyon left Bell Labs and raised her children at Berkeley, California. In Berkeley, she created her own machine learning consulting company, Clopinet. She became interested in medical applications, and used her previous work to classify the genes responsible for different types of cancers. Since 2003, Guyon has organized many challenges in data science, in order to stimulate research in this field. She founded ChaLearn in 2011, a non-profit organization aimed at creating machine learning challenges open to everyone. She was Program Chair of NeurIPS 2016 and became General Chair of NeurIPS in 2017. She is also Action Editor for the Journal of Machine Learning Research and Series Editor for Series: Challenges in Machine Learning. She is a member of the European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems. In 2016, Guyon came back to France to take the Chair Professorship in Big data between the University of Paris-Saclay and INRIA. She works in TAU (TAckling the Underspecified), a research collaboration of the Laboratoire de recherche en informatique. Together with Bernhard Schölkopf and Vladimir Vapnik, she received in 2020 the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Awards for her work in machine learning. == Scientific work == Guyon has worked in many subfields of machine learning, including neural networks, support-vector machines, feature selection and applications of machine learning to biology. === Support-vector machines === Among her most notable contributions, Guyon co-invented support-vector machines (SVM) in 1992, with Bernhard Boser and Vladimir Vapnik. SVM is a supervised machine learning algorithm, comparable to neural networks or decision trees, which has quickly become a classical technique in machine learning. SVMs have especially contributed to the popularization of kernel methods. === Neural networks === During her years at Bell Labs, Guyon took part of numerous projects involving neural networks. In particular, she wrote some of the first papers on the use of neural network for handwriting recognition using the MNIST database. She is also a co-inventor of the siamese neural networks, a neural network architecture used to learn similarities, with applications to signature, face or object recognition. === Machine learning for biology === Guyon is the author of many publications at the intersection of biology (cancer research and genomics) and artificial intelligence. She has notably introduced the use of support-vector machines to detect cancer using genes. === Machine learning challenges === Through her non-profit organization ChaLearn, Guyon has organized and directed challenges open to everyone in order to solve open problems in machine learning, including computer vision, neurosciences, particle physics, feature selection, causality and automated machine learning. Most of the challenges organized by ChaLearn have resulted in publications. Among the most cited ones are: Guyon et al., Result analysis of the NIPS 2003 feature selection challenge, Advances in neural information processing systems, 2005, link Escalera et al., ChaLearn Looking at People Challenge 2014: Dataset and Results, Computer Vision - ECCV 2014 Workshops, Springer International Publishing, 2014, link Guyon et al., A brief Review of the ChaLearn AutoML Challenge, JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings 64:21-30, 2016, link Adam-Bourdario et al., The Higgs boson machine learning challenge, JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings 42:19-55, 2015, link == Private life == She is married to Bernhard Boser, a professor at UC Berkeley. She has twins and one daughter, all three of whom have completed a science degree. Guyon has three citizenships: French by birth, Swiss by marriage and American by naturalization. == Awards and honors == Nomination at the French Academy of technologies (2024) Recipient of the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Awards (2020) American Medical Informatics Association Fellow (2011) == Publications == Bernhard Boser, Isabelle Guyon and Vladmir Vapnik, A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers, Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on Computational learning theory, 1992, doi:10.1145/130385.130401 Jane Bromley, Isabelle Guyon, Yann LeCun, Eduard Säckinger and Roopak Shah, Signature verification using a" siamese" time delay neural network, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 1994. Isabelle Guyon and André Elisseeff, An introduction to variable and feature selection, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2003. Isabelle Guyon, Jason Weston, Stephen Barnhill and Vladimir Vapnik, Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines, Machine Learning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, doi:10.1023/A:1012487302797
Shader lamps
Shader lamps is a computer graphic technique used to change the appearance of physical objects. The still or moving objects are illuminated, using one or more video projectors, by static or animated texture or video stream. The method was invented at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch, Kok-lim Low and Deepak Bandyopadhyay in 1999 [1] as a follow on to Spatial Augmented Reality [2] also invented at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1998 by Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch and Henry Fuchs. A 3D graphic rendering software is typically used to compute the deformation caused by the non perpendicular, non-planar or even complex projection surface. Complex objects (or aggregation of multiple simple objects) create self shadows that must be compensated by using several projectors. The objects are typically replaced by neutral color ones, the projection giving all its visual properties, thus the name shader lamps. The technique can be used to create a sense of invisibility, by rendering transparency. The object is illuminated not by a replacement of its own visual properties, but by the corresponding visual surface placed behind the object as seen from an arbitrary viewing point.
Polynomial kernel
In machine learning, the polynomial kernel is a kernel function commonly used with support vector machines (SVMs) and other kernelized models, that represents the similarity of vectors (training samples) in a feature space over polynomials of the original variables, allowing learning of non-linear models. Intuitively, the polynomial kernel looks not only at the given features of input samples to determine their similarity, but also combinations of these. In the context of regression analysis, such combinations are known as interaction features. The (implicit) feature space of a polynomial kernel is equivalent to that of polynomial regression, but without the combinatorial blowup in the number of parameters to be learned. When the input features are binary-valued (booleans), then the features correspond to logical conjunctions of input features. == Definition == For degree-d polynomials, the polynomial kernel is defined as K ( x , y ) = ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=(\mathbf {x} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {y} +c)^{d}} where x and y are vectors of size n in the input space, i.e. vectors of features computed from training or test samples and c ≥ 0 is a free parameter trading off the influence of higher-order versus lower-order terms in the polynomial. When c = 0, the kernel is called homogeneous. (A further generalized polykernel divides xTy by a user-specified scalar parameter a.) As a kernel, K corresponds to an inner product in a feature space based on some mapping φ: K ( x , y ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\rangle } The nature of φ can be seen from an example. Let d = 2, so we get the special case of the quadratic kernel. After using the multinomial theorem (twice—the outermost application is the binomial theorem) and regrouping, K ( x , y ) = ( ∑ i = 1 n x i y i + c ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( x i 2 ) ( y i 2 ) + ∑ i = 2 n ∑ j = 1 i − 1 ( 2 x i x j ) ( 2 y i y j ) + ∑ i = 1 n ( 2 c x i ) ( 2 c y i ) + c 2 {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}y_{i}+c\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(x_{i}^{2}\right)\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)+\sum _{i=2}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{i-1}\left({\sqrt {2}}x_{i}x_{j}\right)\left({\sqrt {2}}y_{i}y_{j}\right)+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\sqrt {2c}}x_{i}\right)\left({\sqrt {2c}}y_{i}\right)+c^{2}} From this it follows that the feature map is given by: φ ( x ) = ( x n 2 , … , x 1 2 , 2 x n x n − 1 , … , 2 x n x 1 , 2 x n − 1 x n − 2 , … , 2 x n − 1 x 1 , … , 2 x 2 x 1 , 2 c x n , … , 2 c x 1 , c ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=\left(x_{n}^{2},\ldots ,x_{1}^{2},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{n-1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{1},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{n-2},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{2}x_{1},{\sqrt {2c}}x_{n},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2c}}x_{1},c\right)} generalizing for ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle \left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}} , where x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , y ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and applying the multinomial theorem: ( x T y + c ) d = ∑ j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + 1 = d d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! y 1 j 1 ⋯ y n j n c j n + 1 = φ ( x ) T φ ( y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}&=\sum _{j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n+1}=d}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}y_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots y_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\\&=\varphi (\mathbf {x} )^{T}\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\end{alignedat}}} The last summation has l d = ( n + d d ) {\displaystyle l_{d}={\tbinom {n+d}{d}}} elements, so that: φ ( x ) = ( a 1 , … , a l , … , a l d ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\left(a_{1},\dots ,a_{l},\dots ,a_{l_{d}}\right)} where l = ( j 1 , j 2 , . . . , j n , j n + 1 ) {\displaystyle l=(j_{1},j_{2},...,j_{n},j_{n+1})} and a l = d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 | j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + j n + 1 = d {\displaystyle a_{l}={\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\quad |\quad j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n}+j_{n+1}=d} == Practical use == Although the RBF kernel is more popular in SVM classification than the polynomial kernel, the latter is quite popular in natural language processing (NLP). The most common degree is d = 2 (quadratic), since larger degrees tend to overfit on NLP problems. Various ways of computing the polynomial kernel (both exact and approximate) have been devised as alternatives to the usual non-linear SVM training algorithms, including: full expansion of the kernel prior to training/testing with a linear SVM, i.e. full computation of the mapping φ as in polynomial regression; basket mining (using a variant of the apriori algorithm) for the most commonly occurring feature conjunctions in a training set to produce an approximate expansion; inverted indexing of support vectors. One problem with the polynomial kernel is that it may suffer from numerical instability: when xTy + c < 1, K(x, y) = (xTy + c)d tends to zero with increasing d, whereas when xTy + c > 1, K(x, y) tends to infinity.
Multiclass classification
In machine learning and statistical classification, multiclass classification or multinomial classification is the problem of classifying instances into one of three or more classes (classifying instances into one of two classes is called binary classification). For example, deciding on whether an image is showing a banana, peach, orange, or an apple is a multiclass classification problem, with four possible classes (banana, peach, orange, apple), while deciding on whether an image contains an apple or not is a binary classification problem (with the two possible classes being: apple, no apple). While many classification algorithms (e.g., decision trees, k-NN, neural networks and multinomial logistic regression) naturally permit the use of more than two classes, some are by nature binary algorithms (e.g., classical binary support vector machine) and require decomposition strategies such as one-vs-all, one-vs-one, or ECOC to solve multiclass problems. Multiclass classification should not be confused with multi-label classification, where multiple labels are to be predicted for each instance (e.g., predicting that an image contains both an apple and an orange, in the previous example). == Better-than-random multiclass models == From the confusion matrix of a multiclass model, we can determine whether a model does better than chance. Let K ≥ 3 {\displaystyle K\geq 3} be the number of classes, O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}} a set of observations, y ^ : O → { 1 , . . . , K } {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}:{\mathcal {O}}\to \{1,...,K\}} a model of the target variable y : O → { 1 , . . . , K } {\displaystyle y:{\mathcal {O}}\to \{1,...,K\}} and n i , j {\displaystyle n_{i,j}} be the number of observations in the set { y = i } ∩ { y ^ = j } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}\cap \{{\hat {y}}=j\}} . We note n i . = ∑ j n i , j {\displaystyle n_{i.}=\sum _{j}n_{i,j}} , n . j = ∑ i n i , j {\displaystyle n_{.j}=\sum _{i}n_{i,j}} , n = ∑ j n . j = ∑ i n i . {\displaystyle n=\sum _{j}n_{.j}=\sum _{i}n_{i.}} , λ i = n i . n {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}={\frac {n_{i.}}{n}}} and μ j = n . j n {\displaystyle \mu _{j}={\frac {n_{.j}}{n}}} . It is assumed that the confusion matrix ( n i , j ) i , j {\displaystyle (n_{i,j})_{i,j}} contains at least one non-zero entry in each row, that is λ i > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}>0} for any i {\displaystyle i} . Finally we call "normalized confusion matrix" the matrix of conditional probabilities ( P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) ) i , j = ( n i , j n i . ) i , j {\displaystyle (\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i))_{i,j}=\left({\frac {n_{i,j}}{n_{i.}}}\right)_{i,j}} . === Intuitive explanation === The lift is a way of measuring the deviation from independence of two events A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} : L i f t ( A , B ) = P ( A ∩ B ) P ( A ) P ( B ) = P ( A ∣ B ) P ( A ) = P ( B ∣ A ) P ( B ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (A,B)={\frac {\mathbb {P} (A\cap B)}{\mathbb {P} (A)\mathbb {P} (B)}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} (A\mid B)}{\mathbb {P} (A)}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} (B\mid A)}{\mathbb {P} (B)}}} We have L i f t ( A , B ) > 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (A,B)>1} if and only if events A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} occur simultaneously with a greater probability than if they were independent. In other words, if one of the two events occurs, the probability of observing the other event increases. A first condition to satisfy is to have L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)\geq 1} for any i {\displaystyle i} . And the quality of a model (better or worse than chance) does not change if we over- or undersample the dataset, that is if we multiply each row R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} of the confusion matrix by a constant c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} . Thus the second condition is that the necessary and sufficient conditions for doing better than chance need only depend on the normalized confusion matrix. The condition on lifts can be reformulated with One versus Rest binary models : for any i {\displaystyle i} , we define the binary target variable y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} which is the indicator of event { y = i } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}} , and the binary model y ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}_{i}} of y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} which is the indicator of event { y ^ = i } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {y}}=i\}} . Each of the y ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}_{i}} models is a "One versus Rest" model. L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)} only depends on the events { y = i } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}} and { y ^ = i } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {y}}=i\}} , so merging or not merging the other classes doesn't change its value. We therefore have L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) = L i f t ( y i = 1 , y ^ i = 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)=\mathrm {Lift} (y_{i}=1,{\hat {y}}_{i}=1)} and the first condition is that all binary One versus Rest models are better than chance. ==== Example ==== If K = 2 {\displaystyle K=2} and 2 is the class of interest , the normalized confusion matrix is ( s p e c i f i c i t y 1 − s p e c i f i c i t y 1 − s e n s i t i v i t y s e n s i t i v i t y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm {specificity} &1-\mathrm {specificity} \\1-\mathrm {sensitivity} &\mathrm {sensitivity} \end{pmatrix}}} and we have L i f t ( y = 1 , y ^ = 1 ) − 1 = P ( y = y ^ = 1 ) λ 1 μ 1 − 1 = n 1 , 1 n n 1. n .1 − 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=1,{\hat {y}}=1)-1={\frac {\mathbb {P} (y={\hat {y}}=1)}{\lambda _{1}\mu _{1}}}-1={\frac {n_{1,1}n}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}-1} = n 1 , 1 ( n 1 , 1 + n 1 , 2 + n 2 , 1 + n 2 , 2 ) − ( n 1 , 1 + n 1 , 2 ) ( n 1 , 1 + n 2 , 1 ) n 1. n .1 = n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 n 1. n .1 {\displaystyle ={\frac {n_{1,1}(n_{1,1}+n_{1,2}+n_{2,1}+n_{2,2})-(n_{1,1}+n_{1,2})(n_{1,1}+n_{2,1})}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}={\frac {n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}} . Thus L i f t ( y = 1 , y ^ = 1 ) ≥ 1 ⟺ n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=1,{\hat {y}}=1)\geq 1\iff n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}\geq 0} . Similarly, by swapping the roles of 1 and 2, we find that L i f t ( y = 2 , y ^ = 2 ) ≥ 1 ⟺ n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=2,{\hat {y}}=2)\geq 1\iff n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}\geq 0} . Dividing by n 1. n 2. {\displaystyle n_{1.}n_{2.}} we find that the necessary and sufficient condition on the normalized confusion matrix is s e n s i t i v i t y s p e c i f i c i t y − ( 1 − s e n s i t i v i t y ) ( 1 − s p e c i f i c i t y ) ≥ 0 ⟺ s e n s i t i v i t y + s p e c i f i c i t y − 1 ≥ 0 ⟺ J ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {sensitivity} \ \mathrm {specificity} -(1-\mathrm {sensitivity} )(1-\mathrm {specificity} )\geq 0\iff \mathrm {sensitivity} +\mathrm {specificity} -1\geq 0\iff J\geq 0} . This brings us back to the classical binary condition: Youden's J must be positive (or zero for random models). === Random models === A random model is a model that is independent of the target variable. This property is easily reformulated with the confusion matrix. This proposition shows that the model y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} of y {\displaystyle y} is uninformative if and only if there are two families of numbers ( α i ) i {\displaystyle (\alpha _{i})_{i}} and ( β j ) j {\displaystyle (\beta _{j})_{j}} such that P ( { y = i } ∩ { y ^ = j } ) = α i β j {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} (\{y=i\}\cap \{{\hat {y}}=j\})=\alpha _{i}\beta _{j}} for any i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . === Multiclass likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios === We define generalized likelihood ratios calculated from the normalized confusion matrix: for any i {\displaystyle i} and j ≠ i {\displaystyle j\not =i} , let L R i , j = P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = j ) P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{i,j}={\frac {\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=j)}{\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i)}}} . When K = 2 {\displaystyle K=2} , if 2 is the class of interest,, we find the classical likelihood ratios L R 1 , 2 = L R + {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{1,2}=\mathrm {LR} _{+}} and L R 2 , 1 = 1 L R − {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{2,1}={\frac {1}{\mathrm {LR} _{-}}}} . Multiclass diagnostic odds ratios can also be defined using the formula D O R i , j = D O R j , i = L R i , j L R j , i = n i , i n j , j n i , j n j , i = P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = j ) / P ( y ^ = i ∣ y = j ) P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) / P ( y ^ = i ∣ y = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {DOR} _{i,j}=\mathrm {DOR} _{j,i}=\mathrm {LR} _{i,j}\mathrm {LR} _{j,i}={\frac {n_{i,i}n_{j,j}}{n_{i,j}n_{j,i}}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=j)/\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=i\mid y=j)}{\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i)/\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=i\mid y=i)}}} We saw above that a better-than-chance model (or a random model) must verify L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)\geq 1} for any i {\displaystyle i} and λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}} . According to the previous corollary, likelihood ratios are thus greater
Gaussian process emulator
In statistics, Gaussian process emulator is one name for a general type of statistical model that has been used in contexts where the problem is to make maximum use of the outputs of a complicated (often non-random) computer-based simulation model. Each run of the simulation model is computationally expensive and each run is based on many different controlling inputs. The variation of the outputs of the simulation model is expected to vary reasonably smoothly with the inputs, but in an unknown way. The overall analysis involves two models: the simulation model, or "simulator", and the statistical model, or "emulator", which notionally emulates the unknown outputs from the simulator. The Gaussian process emulator model treats the problem from the viewpoint of Bayesian statistics. In this approach, even though the output of the simulation model is fixed for any given set of inputs, the actual outputs are unknown unless the computer model is run and hence can be made the subject of a Bayesian analysis. The main element of the Gaussian process emulator model is that it models the outputs as a Gaussian process on a space that is defined by the model inputs. The model includes a description of the correlation or covariance of the outputs, which enables the model to encompass the idea that differences in the output will be small if there are only small differences in the inputs.
Decision tree pruning
Pruning is a data compression technique in machine learning and search algorithms that reduces the size of decision trees by removing sections of the tree that are non-critical and redundant to classify instances. Pruning reduces the complexity of the final classifier, and hence improves predictive accuracy by the reduction of overfitting. One of the questions that arises in a decision tree algorithm is the optimal size of the final tree. A tree that is too large risks overfitting the training data and poorly generalizing to new samples. A small tree might not capture important structural information about the sample space. However, it is hard to tell when a tree algorithm should stop because it is impossible to tell if the addition of a single extra node will dramatically decrease error. This problem is known as the horizon effect. A common strategy is to grow the tree until each node contains a small number of instances then use pruning to remove nodes that do not provide additional information. Pruning should reduce the size of a learning tree without reducing predictive accuracy as measured by a cross-validation set. There are many techniques for tree pruning that differ in the measurement that is used to optimize performance. == Techniques == Pruning processes can be divided into two types (pre- and post-pruning). Pre-pruning procedures prevent a complete induction of the training set by replacing a stop () criterion in the induction algorithm (e.g. max. Tree depth or information gain (Attr)> minGain). Pre-pruning methods are considered to be more efficient because they do not induce an entire set, but rather trees remain small from the start. Prepruning methods share a common problem, the horizon effect. This is to be understood as the undesired premature termination of the induction by the stop () criterion. Post-pruning (or just pruning) is the most common way of simplifying trees. Here, nodes and subtrees are replaced with leaves to reduce complexity. Pruning can not only significantly reduce the size but also improve the classification accuracy of unseen objects. It may be the case that the accuracy of the assignment on the train set deteriorates, but the accuracy of the classification properties of the tree increases overall. The procedures are differentiated on the basis of their approach in the tree (top-down or bottom-up). === Bottom-up pruning === These procedures start at the last node in the tree (the lowest point). Following recursively upwards, they determine the relevance of each individual node. If the relevance for the classification is not given, the node is dropped or replaced by a leaf. The advantage is that no relevant sub-trees can be lost with this method. These methods include Reduced Error Pruning (REP), Minimum Cost Complexity Pruning (MCCP), or Minimum Error Pruning (MEP). === Top-down pruning === In contrast to the bottom-up method, this method starts at the root of the tree. Following the structure below, a relevance check is carried out which decides whether a node is relevant for the classification of all n items or not. By pruning the tree at an inner node, it can happen that an entire sub-tree (regardless of its relevance) is dropped. One of these representatives is pessimistic error pruning (PEP), which brings quite good results with unseen items. == Pruning algorithms == === Reduced error pruning === One of the simplest forms of pruning is reduced error pruning. Starting at the leaves, each node is replaced with its most popular class. If the prediction accuracy is not affected then the change is kept. While somewhat naive, reduced error pruning has the advantage of simplicity and speed. === Cost complexity pruning === Cost complexity pruning generates a series of trees T 0 … T m {\displaystyle T_{0}\dots T_{m}} where T 0 {\displaystyle T_{0}} is the initial tree and T m {\displaystyle T_{m}} is the root alone. At step i {\displaystyle i} , the tree is created by removing a subtree from tree i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} and replacing it with a leaf node with value chosen as in the tree building algorithm. The subtree that is removed is chosen as follows: Define the error rate of tree T {\displaystyle T} over data set S {\displaystyle S} as err ( T , S ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {err} (T,S)} . The subtree t {\displaystyle t} that minimizes err ( prune ( T , t ) , S ) − err ( T , S ) | leaves ( T ) | − | leaves ( prune ( T , t ) ) | {\displaystyle {\frac {\operatorname {err} (\operatorname {prune} (T,t),S)-\operatorname {err} (T,S)}{\left\vert \operatorname {leaves} (T)\right\vert -\left\vert \operatorname {leaves} (\operatorname {prune} (T,t))\right\vert }}} is chosen for removal. The function prune ( T , t ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prune} (T,t)} defines the tree obtained by pruning the subtrees t {\displaystyle t} from the tree T {\displaystyle T} . Once the series of trees has been created, the best tree is chosen by generalized accuracy as measured by a training set or cross-validation. == Examples == Pruning could be applied in a compression scheme of a learning algorithm to remove the redundant details without compromising the model's performances. In neural networks, pruning removes entire neurons or layers of neurons.
Synaptic weight
In neuroscience and computer science, synaptic weight refers to the strength or amplitude of a connection between two nodes, corresponding in biology to the amount of influence the firing of one neuron has on another. The term is typically used in artificial and biological neural network research. == Computation == In a computational neural network, a vector or set of inputs x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} and outputs y {\displaystyle {\textbf {y}}} , or pre- and post-synaptic neurons respectively, are interconnected with synaptic weights represented by the matrix w {\displaystyle w} , where for a linear neuron y j = ∑ i w i j x i or y = w x {\displaystyle y_{j}=\sum _{i}w_{ij}x_{i}~~{\textrm {or}}~~{\textbf {y}}=w{\textbf {x}}} . where the rows of the synaptic matrix represent the vector of synaptic weights for the output indexed by j {\displaystyle j} . The synaptic weight is changed by using a learning rule, the most basic of which is Hebb's rule, which is usually stated in biological terms as Neurons that fire together, wire together. Computationally, this means that if a large signal from one of the input neurons results in a large signal from one of the output neurons, then the synaptic weight between those two neurons will increase. The rule is unstable, however, and is typically modified using such variations as Oja's rule, radial basis functions or the backpropagation algorithm. == Biology == For biological networks, the effect of synaptic weights is not as simple as for linear neurons or Hebbian learning. However, biophysical models such as BCM theory have seen some success in mathematically describing these networks. In the mammalian central nervous system, signal transmission is carried out by interconnected networks of nerve cells, or neurons. For the basic pyramidal neuron, the input signal is carried by the axon, which releases neurotransmitter chemicals into the synapse which is picked up by the dendrites of the next neuron, which can then generate an action potential which is analogous to the output signal in the computational case. The synaptic weight in this process is determined by several variable factors: How well the input signal propagates through the axon (see myelination), The amount of neurotransmitter released into the synapse and the amount that can be absorbed in the following cell (determined by the number of AMPA and NMDA receptors on the cell membrane and the amount of intracellular calcium and other ions), The number of such connections made by the axon to the dendrites, How well the signal propagates and integrates in the postsynaptic cell. The changes in synaptic weight that occur is known as synaptic plasticity, and the process behind long-term changes (long-term potentiation and depression) is still poorly understood. Hebb's original learning rule was originally applied to biological systems, but has had to undergo many modifications as a number of theoretical and experimental problems came to light.