In August 2024, three class-action lawsuits were filed against National Public Data along with over 14 complaints filed in federal court, claiming that the company permitted hackers to steal sensitive private information covering millions of individuals. The theft was alleged to have occurred in April 2024. One of the lawsuits specifically claims that in April, a hacker going by the moniker "USDoD" posted a notice on the dark web, offering the data for sale at the price of US$3.5 million. The information stolen is alleged to include 2.9 billion records containing full names, current and past addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and telephone numbers. The stolen data contains records for people in the US, UK, and Canada. National Public Data confirmed on August 16, 2024, there was a breach originating from someone trying to breach their systems since December 2023, with the breach occurring from April 2024 and over the next few months. The company also confirmed that 2.9 billion records were obtained, though they were still working to determine how many people were affected by the breach, and were working with law enforcement to identify the hacker. == Jerico Pictures == Jerico Pictures, Inc., doing business as National Public Data, was a data broker company that performed employee background checks. Their primary service was collecting information from public data sources, including criminal records, addresses, and employment history, and offering that information for sale. On October 2, 2024, Jerico Pictures filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as it currently faces over a dozen lawsuits over the breach, and is potentially liable "for credit monitoring for hundreds of millions of potentially impacted individuals." In December 2024, National Public Data shut down, showing a closure notice on its website.
Teacher forcing is an algorithm for training the weights of recurrent neural networks (RNNs). It involves feeding observed sequence values (i.e. ground-truth samples) back into the RNN after each step, thus forcing the RNN to stay close to the ground-truth sequence. The term "teacher forcing" can be motivated by comparing the RNN to a human student taking a multi-part exam where the answer to each part (for example a mathematical calculation) depends on the answer to the preceding part. In this analogy, rather than grading every answer in the end, with the risk that the student fails every single part even though they only made a mistake in the first one, a teacher records the score for each individual part and then tells the student the correct answer, to be used in the next part. The use of an external teacher signal is in contrast to real-time recurrent learning (RTRL). Teacher signals are known from oscillator networks. The promise is, that teacher forcing helps to reduce the training time. The term "teacher forcing" was introduced in 1989 by Ronald J. Williams and David Zipser, who reported that the technique was already being "frequently used in dynamical supervised learning tasks" around that time. A NeurIPS 2016 paper introduced the related method of "professor forcing".
Linguamatics, headquartered in Cambridge, England, with offices in the United States and UK, is a provider of text mining systems through software licensing and services, primarily for pharmaceutical and healthcare applications. Founded in 2001, the company was purchased by IQVIA in January 2019. == Technology == The company develops enterprise search tools for the life sciences sector. The core natural language processing engine (I2E) uses a federated architecture to incorporate data from 3rd party resources. Initially developed to be used interactively through a graphic user interface, the core software also has an application programming interface that can be used to automate searches. LabKey, Penn Medicine, Atrius Health and Mercy all use Linguamatics software to extract electronic health record data into data warehouses. Linguamatics software is used by 17 of the top 20 global pharmaceutical companies, the US Food and Drug Administration, as well as healthcare providers. == Software community == The core software, "I2E", is used by a number of companies to either extend their own software or to publish their data. Copyright Clearance Center uses I2E to produce searchable indexes of material that would otherwise be unsearchable due to copyright. Thomson Reuters produces Cortellis Informatics Clinical Text Analytics, which depends on I2E to make clinical data accessible and searchable. Pipeline Pilot can integrate I2E as part of a workflow. ChemAxon can be used alongside I2E to allow named entity recognition of chemicals within unstructured data. Data sources include MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA Drug Labels, PubMed Central, and Patent Abstracts.
LIBSVM and LIBLINEAR are two popular open source machine learning libraries, both developed at the National Taiwan University and both written in C++ though with a C API. LIBSVM implements the sequential minimal optimization (SMO) algorithm for kernelized support vector machines (SVMs), supporting classification and regression. LIBLINEAR implements linear SVMs and logistic regression models trained using a coordinate descent algorithm. The SVM learning code from both libraries is often reused in other open source machine learning toolkits, including GATE, KNIME, Orange and scikit-learn. Bindings and ports exist for programming languages such as Java, MATLAB, R, Julia, and Python. It is available in e1071 library in R and scikit-learn in Python. Both libraries are free software released under the 3-clause BSD license.
Google Mobile Services (GMS) is a collection of proprietary applications and application programming interfaces (APIs) services from Google that are typically pre-installed on the majority of Android devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and smart TVs. GMS is not a part of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which means an Android manufacturer needs to obtain a license from Google in order to legally pre-install GMS on an Android device. This license is provided by Google without any licensing fees except in the EU. == Core applications == The following are core applications that are part of Google Mobile Services: Google Search Google Chrome YouTube Google Play Google Drive Gmail Google Meet Google Maps Google Photos Google TV YouTube Music === Historically === Google+ Google Hangouts Google Wallet Google Play Magazines Google Play Music Google Play Movies & TV Google Duo == Reception, competitors, and regulators == === FairSearch === Numerous European firms filed a complaint to the European Commission stating that Google had manipulated their power and dominance within the market to push their Services to be used by phone manufacturers. The firms were joined under the name FairSearch, and the main firms included were Microsoft, Expedia, TripAdvisor, Nokia and Oracle. FairSearch's major problem with Google's practices was that they believed Google were forcing phone manufacturers to use their Mobile Services. They claimed Google managed this by asking these manufacturers to sign a contract stating that they must preinstall specific Google Mobile Services, such as Maps, Search and YouTube, in order to get the latest version of Android. Google swiftly responded stating that they "continue to work co-operatively with the European Commission". === Aptoide === The third-party Android app store Aptoide also filed an EU competition complaint against Google once again stating that they are misusing their power within the market. Aptoide alleged that Google was blocking third-party app stores from being on Google Play, as well as blocking Google Chrome from downloading any third-party apps and app stores. As of June 2014, Google had not responded to these allegations. === Abuse of Android dominance === In May 2019, Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Ors. the Competition Commission of India ordered an antitrust probe against Google for abusing its dominant position with Android to block market rivals. In Prima Facie opinion the commission held that mandatory pre-installation of the entire Google Mobile Services (GMS) suite, under Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA), amounts to the imposition of unfair conditions on the device manufacturers. === EU antitrust ruling === On July 18, 2018, the European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules which resulted in a change of licensing policy for the GMS in the EU. A new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the EEA was created. The change is that the GMS is now decoupled from the base Android and will be offered under a separate paid licensing agreement. === Privacy policy === At the same time, Google faced problems with various European data protection agencies, most notably In the United Kingdom and France. The problem they faced was that they had a set of 60 rules merged into one, which allowed Google to "track users more closely". Google once again came out and stated that their new policies still abide by European Union laws. === Android distributions without Google Mobile Services === After surveillance and privacy concerns, several custom android distributions have been implemented, such as GrapheneOS, LineageOS, CalyxOS, iodéOS or /e/OS, and they come either without any GMS installed by default or with microG, that adds a compatibility layer.
In machine learning, the hinge loss is a loss function used for training classifiers. The hinge loss is used for "maximum-margin" classification, most notably for support vector machines (SVMs). For an intended output t = ±1 and a classifier score y, the hinge loss of the prediction y is defined as ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , 1 − t ⋅ y ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\max(0,1-t\cdot y)} Note that y {\displaystyle y} should be the "raw" output of the classifier's decision function, not the predicted class label. For instance, in linear SVMs, y = w ⋅ x + b {\displaystyle y=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} +b} , where ( w , b ) {\displaystyle (\mathbf {w} ,b)} are the parameters of the hyperplane and x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is the input variable(s). When t and y have the same sign (meaning y predicts the right class) and | y | ≥ 1 {\displaystyle |y|\geq 1} , the hinge loss ℓ ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ell (y)=0} . When they have opposite signs, ℓ ( y ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)} increases linearly with y, and similarly if | y | < 1 {\displaystyle |y|<1} , even if it has the same sign (correct prediction, but not by enough margin). The Hinge loss is not a proper scoring rule. == Extensions == While binary SVMs are commonly extended to multiclass classification in a one-vs.-all or one-vs.-one fashion, it is also possible to extend the hinge loss itself for such an end. Several different variations of multiclass hinge loss have been proposed. For example, Crammer and Singer defined it for a linear classifier as ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , 1 + max y ≠ t w y x − w t x ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\max(0,1+\max _{y\neq t}\mathbf {w} _{y}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {w} _{t}\mathbf {x} )} , where t {\displaystyle t} is the target label, w t {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{t}} and w y {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{y}} are the model parameters. Weston and Watkins provided a similar definition, but with a sum rather than a max: ℓ ( y ) = ∑ y ≠ t max ( 0 , 1 + w y x − w t x ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\sum _{y\neq t}\max(0,1+\mathbf {w} _{y}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {w} _{t}\mathbf {x} )} . In structured prediction, the hinge loss can be further extended to structured output spaces. Structured SVMs with margin rescaling use the following variant, where w denotes the SVM's parameters, y the SVM's predictions, φ the joint feature function, and Δ the Hamming loss: ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , Δ ( y , t ) + ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , y ) ⟩ − ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , t ) ⟩ ) = max ( 0 , max y ∈ Y ( Δ ( y , t ) + ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , y ) ⟩ ) − ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , t ) ⟩ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\ell (\mathbf {y} )&=\max(0,\Delta (\mathbf {y} ,\mathbf {t} )+\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )\rangle -\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {t} )\rangle )\\&=\max(0,\max _{y\in {\mathcal {Y}}}\left(\Delta (\mathbf {y} ,\mathbf {t} )+\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )\rangle \right)-\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {t} )\rangle )\end{aligned}}} . == Optimization == The hinge loss is a convex function, so many of the usual convex optimizers used in machine learning can work with it. It is not differentiable, but has a subgradient with respect to model parameters w of a linear SVM with score function y = w ⋅ x {\displaystyle y=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} } that is given by ∂ ℓ ∂ w i = { − t ⋅ x i if t ⋅ y < 1 , 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \ell }{\partial w_{i}}}={\begin{cases}-t\cdot x_{i}&{\text{if }}t\cdot y<1,\\0&{\text{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} However, since the derivative of the hinge loss at t y = 1 {\displaystyle ty=1} is undefined, smoothed versions may be preferred for optimization, such as Rennie and Srebro's ℓ ( y ) = { 1 2 − t y if t y ≤ 0 , 1 2 ( 1 − t y ) 2 if 0 < t y < 1 , 0 if 1 ≤ t y {\displaystyle \ell (y)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}-ty&{\text{if}}~~ty\leq 0,\\{\frac {1}{2}}(1-ty)^{2}&{\text{if}}~~0Read guide →
The proper generalized decomposition (PGD) is an iterative numerical method for solving boundary value problems (BVPs), that is, partial differential equations constrained by a set of boundary conditions, such as the Poisson's equation or the Laplace's equation. The PGD algorithm computes an approximation of the solution of the BVP by successive enrichment. This means that, in each iteration, a new component (or mode) is computed and added to the approximation. In principle, the more modes obtained, the closer the approximation is to its theoretical solution. Unlike POD principal components, PGD modes are not necessarily orthogonal to each other. By selecting only the most relevant PGD modes, a reduced order model of the solution is obtained. Because of this, PGD is considered a dimensionality reduction algorithm. == Description == The proper generalized decomposition is a method characterized by a variational formulation of the problem, a discretization of the domain in the style of the finite element method, the assumption that the solution can be approximated as a separate representation and a numerical greedy algorithm to find the solution. === Variational formulation === In the Proper Generalized Decomposition method, the variational formulation involves translating the problem into a format where the solution can be approximated by minimizing (or sometimes maximizing) a functional. A functional is a scalar quantity that depends on a function, which in this case, represents our problem. The most commonly implemented variational formulation in PGD is the Bubnov-Galerkin method. This method is chosen for its ability to provide an approximate solution to complex problems, such as those described by partial differential equations (PDEs). In the Bubnov-Galerkin approach, the idea is to project the problem onto a space spanned by a finite number of basis functions. These basis functions are chosen to approximate the solution space of the problem. In the Bubnov-Galerkin method, we seek an approximate solution that satisfies the integral form of the PDEs over the domain of the problem. This is different from directly solving the differential equations. By doing so, the method transforms the problem into finding the coefficients that best fit this integral equation in the chosen function space. While the Bubnov-Galerkin method is prevalent, other variational formulations are also used in PGD, depending on the specific requirements and characteristics of the problem, such as: Petrov-Galerkin Method: This method is similar to the Bubnov-Galerkin approach but differs in the choice of test functions. In the Petrov-Galerkin method, the test functions (used to project the residual of the differential equation) are different from the trial functions (used to approximate the solution). This can lead to improved stability and accuracy for certain types of problems. Collocation Method: In collocation methods, the differential equation is satisfied at a finite number of points in the domain, known as collocation points. This approach can be simpler and more direct than the integral-based methods like Galerkin's, but it may also be less stable for some problems. Least Squares Method: This approach involves minimizing the square of the residual of the differential equation over the domain. It is particularly useful when dealing with problems where traditional methods struggle with stability or convergence. Mixed Finite Element Method: In mixed methods, additional variables (such as fluxes or gradients) are introduced and approximated along with the primary variable of interest. This can lead to more accurate and stable solutions for certain problems, especially those involving incompressibility or conservation laws. Discontinuous Galerkin Method: This is a variant of the Galerkin method where the solution is allowed to be discontinuous across element boundaries. This method is particularly useful for problems with sharp gradients or discontinuities. === Domain discretization === The discretization of the domain is a well defined set of procedures that cover (a) the creation of finite element meshes, (b) the definition of basis function on reference elements (also called shape functions) and (c) the mapping of reference elements onto the elements of the mesh. === Separate representation === PGD assumes that the solution u of a (multidimensional) problem can be approximated as a separate representation of the form u ≈ u N ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) = ∑ i = 1 N X 1 i ( x 1 ) ⋅ X 2 i ( x 2 ) ⋯ X d i ( x d ) , {\displaystyle \mathbf {u} \approx \mathbf {u} ^{N}(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\mathbf {X_{1}} _{i}(x_{1})\cdot \mathbf {X_{2}} _{i}(x_{2})\cdots \mathbf {X_{d}} _{i}(x_{d}),} where the number of addends N and the functional products X1(x1), X2(x2), ..., Xd(xd), each depending on a variable (or variables), are unknown beforehand. === Greedy algorithm === The solution is sought by applying a greedy algorithm, usually the fixed point algorithm, to the weak formulation of the problem. For each iteration i of the algorithm, a mode of the solution is computed. Each mode consists of a set of numerical values of the functional products X1(x1), ..., Xd(xd), which enrich the approximation of the solution. Due to the greedy nature of the algorithm, the term 'enrich' is used rather than 'improve', since some modes may actually worsen the approach. The number of computed modes required to obtain an approximation of the solution below a certain error threshold depends on the stopping criterion of the iterative algorithm. == Features == PGD is suitable for solving high-dimensional problems, since it overcomes the limitations of classical approaches. In particular, PGD avoids the curse of dimensionality, as solving decoupled problems is computationally much less expensive than solving multidimensional problems. Therefore, PGD enables to re-adapt parametric problems into a multidimensional framework by setting the parameters of the problem as extra coordinates: u ≈ u N ( x 1 , … , x d ; k 1 , … , k p ) = ∑ i = 1 N X 1 i ( x 1 ) ⋯ X d i ( x d ) ⋅ K 1 i ( k 1 ) ⋯ K p i ( k p ) , {\displaystyle \mathbf {u} \approx \mathbf {u} ^{N}(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d};k_{1},\ldots ,k_{p})=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\mathbf {X_{1}} _{i}(x_{1})\cdots \mathbf {X_{d}} _{i}(x_{d})\cdot \mathbf {K_{1}} _{i}(k_{1})\cdots \mathbf {K_{p}} _{i}(k_{p}),} where a series of functional products K1(k1), K2(k2), ..., Kp(kp), each depending on a parameter (or parameters), has been incorporated to the equation. In this case, the obtained approximation of the solution is called computational vademecum: a general meta-model containing all the particular solutions for every possible value of the involved parameters. == Sparse Subspace Learning == The Sparse Subspace Learning (SSL) method leverages the use of hierarchical collocation to approximate the numerical solution of parametric models. With respect to traditional projection-based reduced order modeling, the use of a collocation enables non-intrusive approach based on sparse adaptive sampling of the parametric space. This allows to recover the lowdimensional structure of the parametric solution subspace while also learning the functional dependency from the parameters in explicit form. A sparse low-rank approximate tensor representation of the parametric solution can be built through an incremental strategy that only needs to have access to the output of a deterministic solver. Non-intrusiveness makes this approach straightforwardly applicable to challenging problems characterized by nonlinearity or non affine weak forms.
In the United States, prescription monitoring programs (PMPs) or prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are state-run programs which collect and distribute data about the prescription and dispensation of federally controlled substances and, depending on state requirements, other potentially abusable prescription drugs. PMPs are meant to help prevent adverse drug-related events such as opioid overdoses, drug diversion, and substance abuse by decreasing the amount and/or frequency of opioid prescribing, and by identifying those patients who are obtaining prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e., "doctor shopping") or those physicians overprescribing opioids. Most US health care workers support the idea of PMPs, which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments. The database, whose use is required by State law, typically requires prescribers and pharmacies dispensing controlled substances to register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense from their offices) to report the dispensation of such prescriptions to an electronic online database. The majority of PMPs are authorized to notify law enforcement agencies or licensing boards or physicians when a prescriber, or patients receiving prescriptions, exceed thresholds established by the state or prescription recipient exceeds thresholds established by the State. All states have implemented PDMPs, although evidence for the effectiveness of these programs is mixed. While prescription of opioids has decreased with PMP use, overdose deaths in many states have actually increased, with those states sharing data with neighboring jurisdictions or requiring reporting of more drugs experiencing highest increases in deaths. This may be because those declined opioid prescriptions turn to street drugs, whose potency and contaminants carry greater overdose risk. == History == Prescription drug monitoring programs, or PDMPs, are an example of one initiative proposed to alleviate effects of the opioid crisis. The programs are designed to restrict prescription drug abuse by limiting a patient's ability to obtain similar prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e. “doctor shopping”) and reducing diversion of controlled substances. This is meant to reduce risk of fatal overdose caused by high doses of opioids or interactions between opioids and benzodiazepenes, and to enable better decision making on the part of healthcare providers who may be unaware of a patient's prescription drug use, history or other prescriptions. PDMPs have been implemented in state legislations since 1939 in California, a time before electronic medical records, though implementation rose alongside increased awareness of overprescribing of opioids and overdose. A later New York state program was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Whalen v. Roe. But, by 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam had enacted PDMP legislation. In 2021 Missouri, the last State to not use a PMP, adopted legislation to create one. PMPs are constantly being updated to increase speed of data collection, sharing of data across States, and ease of interpretation. This is being done by integrating PDMP reports with other health information technologies such as health information exchanges (HIE), electronic health record (EHR) systems, and/ or pharmacy dispensing software systems. One program that has been implemented in nine states is called the PDMP Electronic Health Records Integration and Interoperability Expansion, also known as PEHRIIE. Another software, marketed by Bamboo Health and integrated with PMPs in 43 states, uses an algorithm to track factors thought to increase risk of diversion, abuse or overdose, and assigns patients a three digit score based on presumed indicators of risk. While some studies have suggested that PDMP-HIT integration and sharing of interstate data brings benefits such as reduced opioid-related inpatient morbidity, others have found no or negative impact on mortality compared to states without PMP data sharing. Patient and media reports suggest need for testing and evaluation of algorithmic software used to score risk, with some patients reporting denial of prescriptions without c explanation or clarity of data. == Goals == Most health care workers support PMPs which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments, as well as law-enforcement agencies. The collaboration supports the legitimate medical use of controlled substances while limiting their abuse and diversion. Pharmacies dispensing controlled substances and prescribers typically must register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense controlled substances from their offices) report the dispensation to an electronic online database. Some pharmacy software can submit these reports automatically to multiple states. == Usage == === List of programs by state === === Software systems === NarxCare is a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) run by Bamboo Health. Bamboo Health was formerly known as Appriss. It is widely used across the United States by pharmacies including Rite Aid as well as those at Walmart and Sam’s Club. The NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient, combining data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states to make the registries interoperable nationally. It also uses machine learning to generate an "Overdose Risk Score" that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data; these scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Advertised as an "analytics tool and care management platform", the NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient including how many pharmacies they have visited and the combinations of medication they are prescribed. It combines data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states, making the registries interoperable nationally. It additionally uses machine learning to generate various three-digit "risk scores" and an overall "Overdose Risk Score", collectively referred to as Narx Scores, in a process that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data as well as court records. == Controversy == Many doctors and researchers support the idea of PDMPs as a tool in combatting the opioid epidemic. Opioid prescribing, opioid diversion and supply, opioid misuse, and opioid-related morbidity and mortality are common elements in data entered into PDMPs. Prescription Monitoring Programs are purported to offer economic benefits for the states who implement them by decreasing overall health care costs, lost productivity, and investigation times. However, there are many studies that conclude the impact of PDMPs is unclear. While use of PMPs has been accompanied by decrease in opioid prescribing, few analyses consider corresponding use of street opioids, extramedical use, or diversion, which might provide a more holistic method for evaluation of PMP intent and efficacy. Evidence for PDMP impact on fatal overdoses is decidedly mixed, with multiple studies finding increased overdose rates in some states, decreases in others, or no clear impact. Interestingly, an increase in heroin overdoses after PDMP implementation has been commonly reported, presumably as denial of prescription opioids sends patients in search of street drugs. Narx Scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the generation process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Writing in Duke Law Journal, Jennifer Oliva stated that "black-box algorithms" are used to generate the scores.
In computational neuroscience, SUPS (for Synaptic Updates Per Second) or formerly CUPS (Connections Updates Per Second) is a measure of a neuronal network performance, useful in fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and computer science. == Computing == For a processor or computer designed to simulate a neural network SUPS is measured as the product of simulated neurons N {\displaystyle N} and average connectivity c {\displaystyle c} (synapses) per neuron per second: S U P S = c × N {\displaystyle SUPS=c\times N} Depending on the type of simulation it is usually equal to the total number of synapses simulated. In an "asynchronous" dynamic simulation if a neuron spikes at υ {\displaystyle \upsilon } Hz, the average rate of synaptic updates provoked by the activity of that neuron is υ c N {\displaystyle \upsilon cN} . In a synchronous simulation with step Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} the number of synaptic updates per second would be c N Δ t {\displaystyle {\frac {cN}{\Delta t}}} . As Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} has to be chosen much smaller than the average interval between two successive afferent spikes, which implies Δ t < 1 υ N {\displaystyle \Delta t<{\frac {1}{\upsilon N}}} , giving an average of synaptic updates equal to υ c N 2 {\displaystyle \upsilon cN^{2}} . Therefore, spike-driven synaptic dynamics leads to a linear scaling of computational complexity O(N) per neuron, compared with the O(N2) in the "synchronous" case. == Records == Developed in the 1980s Adaptive Solutions' CNAPS-1064 Digital Parallel Processor chip is a full neural network (NNW). It was designed as a coprocessor to a host and has 64 sub-processors arranged in a 1D array and operating in a SIMD mode. Each sub-processor can emulate one or more neurons and multiple chips can be grouped together. At 25 MHz it is capable of 1.28 GMAC. After the presentation of the RN-100 (12 MHz) single neuron chip at Seattle 1991 Ricoh developed the multi-neuron chip RN-200. It had 16 neurons and 16 synapses per neuron. The chip has on-chip learning ability using a proprietary backdrop algorithm. It came in a 257-pin PGA encapsulation and drew 3.0 W at a maximum. It was capable of 3 GCPS (1 GCPS at 32 MHz). In 1991–97, Siemens developed the MA-16 chip, SYNAPSE-1 and SYNAPSE-3 Neurocomputer. The MA-16 was a fast matrix-matrix multiplier that can be combined to form systolic arrays. It could process 4 patterns of 16 elements each (16-bit), with 16 neuron values (16-bit) at a rate of 800 MMAC or 400 MCPS at 50 MHz. The SYNAPSE3-PC PCI card contained 2 MA-16 with a peak performance of 2560 MOPS (1.28 GMAC); 7160 MOPS (3.58 GMAC) when using three boards. In 2013, the K computer was used to simulate a neural network of 1.73 billion neurons with a total of 10.4 trillion synapses (1% of the human brain). The simulation ran for 40 minutes to simulate 1 s of brain activity at a normal activity level (4.4 on average). The simulation required 1 Petabyte of storage.
In mathematics, Bondy's theorem is a bound on the number of elements needed to distinguish the sets in a family of sets from each other. It belongs to the field of combinatorics, and is named after John Adrian Bondy, who published it in 1972. == Statement == The theorem is as follows: Let X be a set with n elements and let A1, A2, ..., An be distinct subsets of X. Then there exists a subset S of X with n − 1 elements such that the sets Ai ∩ S are all distinct. In other words, if we have a 0-1 matrix with n rows and n columns such that each row is distinct, we can remove one column such that the rows of the resulting n × (n − 1) matrix are distinct. == Example == Consider the 4 × 4 matrix [ 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&1&0&1\\0&1&0&1\\0&0&1&1\\0&1&1&0\end{bmatrix}}} where all rows are pairwise distinct. If we delete, for example, the first column, the resulting matrix [ 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&0&1\\1&0&1\\0&1&1\\1&1&0\end{bmatrix}}} no longer has this property: the first row is identical to the second row. Nevertheless, by Bondy's theorem we know that we can always find a column that can be deleted without introducing any identical rows. In this case, we can delete the third column: all rows of the 3 × 4 matrix [ 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&1&1\\0&1&1\\0&0&1\\0&1&0\end{bmatrix}}} are distinct. Another possibility would have been deleting the fourth column. == Learning theory application == From the perspective of computational learning theory, Bondy's theorem can be rephrased as follows: Let C be a concept class over a finite domain X. Then there exists a subset S of X with the size at most |C| − 1 such that S is a witness set for every concept in C. This implies that every finite concept class C has its teaching dimension bounded by |C| − 1.
State–action–reward–state–action (SARSA) is an algorithm for learning a Markov decision process policy, used in the reinforcement learning area of machine learning. It was proposed by Rummery and Niranjan in a technical note with the name "Modified Connectionist Q-Learning" (MCQ-L). The alternative name SARSA, proposed by Rich Sutton, was only mentioned as a footnote. This name reflects the fact that the main function for updating the Q-value depends on the current state of the agent "S1", the action the agent chooses "A1", the reward "R2" the agent gets for choosing this action, the state "S2" that the agent enters after taking that action, and finally the next action "A2" the agent chooses in its new state. The acronym for the quintuple (St, At, Rt+1, St+1, At+1) is SARSA. Some authors use a slightly different convention and write the quintuple (St, At, Rt, St+1, At+1), depending on which time step the reward is formally assigned. The rest of the article uses the former convention. == Algorithm == Q new ( S t , A t ) ← ( 1 − α ) Q ( S t , A t ) + α [ R t + 1 + γ Q ( S t + 1 , A t + 1 ) ] {\displaystyle Q^{\textrm {new}}(S_{t},A_{t})\leftarrow (1-\alpha )Q(S_{t},A_{t})+\alpha \,[R_{t+1}+\gamma \,Q(S_{t+1},A_{t+1})]} A SARSA agent interacts with the environment and updates the policy based on actions taken, hence this is known as an on-policy learning algorithm. The Q value for a state-action is updated by an error, adjusted by the learning rate α. Q values represent the possible reward received in the next time step for taking action a in state s, plus the discounted future reward received from the next state-action observation. Watkin's Q-learning updates an estimate of the optimal state-action value function Q ∗ {\displaystyle Q^{}} based on the maximum reward of available actions. While SARSA learns the Q values associated with taking the policy it follows itself, Watkin's Q-learning learns the Q values associated with taking the optimal policy while following an exploration/exploitation policy. Some optimizations of Watkin's Q-learning may be applied to SARSA. == Hyperparameters == === Learning rate (alpha) === The learning rate determines to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information. A factor of 0 will make the agent not learn anything, while a factor of 1 would make the agent consider only the most recent information. === Discount factor (gamma) === The discount factor determines the importance of future rewards. A discount factor of 0 makes the agent "opportunistic", or "myopic", e.g., by only considering current rewards, while a factor approaching 1 will make it strive for a long-term high reward. If the discount factor meets or exceeds 1, the Q {\displaystyle Q} values may diverge. === Initial conditions (Q(S0, A0)) === Since SARSA is an iterative algorithm, it implicitly assumes an initial condition before the first update occurs. A high (infinite) initial value, also known as "optimistic initial conditions", can encourage exploration: no matter what action takes place, the update rule causes it to have higher values than the other alternative, thus increasing their choice probability. In 2013 it was suggested that the first reward r {\displaystyle r} could be used to reset the initial conditions. According to this idea, the first time an action is taken the reward is used to set the value of Q {\displaystyle Q} . This allows immediate learning in case of fixed deterministic rewards. This resetting-of-initial-conditions (RIC) approach seems to be consistent with human behavior in repeated binary choice experiments.
Differential evolution (DE) is an evolutionary algorithm to optimize a problem by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a given measure of quality. Such methods are commonly known as metaheuristics as they make few or no assumptions about the optimized problem and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. However, metaheuristics such as DE do not guarantee an optimal solution is ever found. DE is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means DE does not require the optimization problem to be differentiable, as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. DE can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. DE optimizes a problem by maintaining a population of candidate solutions and creating new candidate solutions by combining existing ones according to its simple formulae, and then keeping whichever candidate solution has the best score or fitness on the optimization problem at hand. In this way, the optimization problem is treated as a black box that merely provides a measure of quality given a candidate solution and the gradient is therefore not needed. == History == Storn and Price introduced Differential Evolution in 1995. Books have been published on theoretical and practical aspects of using DE in parallel computing, multiobjective optimization, constrained optimization, and the books also contain surveys of application areas. Surveys on the multi-faceted research aspects of DE can be found in journal articles. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the DE algorithm works by having a population of candidate solutions (called agents). These agents are moved around in the search-space by using simple mathematical formulae to combine the positions of existing agents from the population. If the new position of an agent is an improvement then it is accepted and forms part of the population, otherwise the new position is simply discarded. The process is repeated and by doing so it is hoped, but not guaranteed, that a satisfactory solution will eventually be discovered. Formally, let f : R n → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } be the fitness function which must be minimized (note that maximization can be performed by considering the function h := − f {\displaystyle h:=-f} instead). The function takes a candidate solution as argument in the form of a vector of real numbers. It produces a real number as output which indicates the fitness of the given candidate solution. The gradient of f {\displaystyle f} is not known. The goal is to find a solution m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } for which f ( m ) ≤ f ( p ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {m} )\leq f(\mathbf {p} )} for all p {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} } in the search-space, which means that m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } is the global minimum. Let x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} designate a candidate solution (agent) in the population. The basic DE algorithm can then be described as follows: Choose the parameters NP ≥ 4 {\displaystyle {\text{NP}}\geq 4} , CR ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\text{CR}}\in [0,1]} , and F ∈ [ 0 , 2 ] {\displaystyle F\in [0,2]} . NP : NP {\displaystyle {\text{NP}}} is the population size, i.e. the number of candidate agents or "parents". CR : The parameter CR ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\text{CR}}\in [0,1]} is called the crossover probability. F : The parameter F ∈ [ 0 , 2 ] {\displaystyle F\in [0,2]} is called the differential weight. Typical settings are N P = 10 n {\displaystyle NP=10n} , C R = 0.9 {\displaystyle CR=0.9} and F = 0.8 {\displaystyle F=0.8} . Optimization performance may be greatly impacted by these choices; see below. Initialize all agents x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } with random positions in the search-space. Until a termination criterion is met (e.g. number of iterations performed, or adequate fitness reached), repeat the following: For each agent x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } in the population do: Pick three agents a , b {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} ,\mathbf {b} } , and c {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} } from the population at random, they must be distinct from each other as well as from agent x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . ( a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } is called the "base" vector.) Pick a random index R ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle R\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} where n {\displaystyle n} is the dimensionality of the problem being optimized. Compute the agent's potentially new position y = [ y 1 , … , y n ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} =[y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}]} as follows: For each i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , pick a uniformly distributed random number r i ∼ U ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle r_{i}\sim U(0,1)} If r i < C R {\displaystyle r_{i}Read guide →