Goto

Collaborating Authors

Computational Learning Theory


Pinaki Laskar on LinkedIn: #AI #MachineLearning #DeepLearning

#artificialintelligence

AI Researcher, Cognitive Technologist Inventor - AI Thinking, Think Chain Innovator - AIOT, XAI, Autonomous Cars, IIOT Founder Fisheyebox Spatial Computing Savant, Transformative Leader, Industry X.0 Practitioner Meta-AI is about modeling and simulating reality, causality, mentality by digital technologies. It is key source of data is science as the sum of universal knowledge, all the world's information as coordinated and systematized. It is typically divided into three major branches that consist of the following, - the natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense; - the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; - the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which deal with symbols governed by rules; As to empiricism, stating that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience, both the philosophical sciences and the formal sciences as well as mathematics are out of any science as they do not rely on empirical evidence. It is plain and clear, data or information or knowledge have real value if only coordinated and systematized and organized. Again, drawing on pattern recognition and computational learning theory, Meta-ML is dedicated to the study of problem-solving by computer programs in general, enabling computers to reason about the world and learn from data, to effectively interact with any realities, physical, mental, social, digital, or virtual. AI/ML/DL modelling should consist of the following necessary features, Meta-physical Assumptions: prior knowledge, the basis of our knowing, understanding, or thinking about the whole world or a domain problem (primary causes, principles and elements).


Data Science & Machine Learning(Theory+Projects)A-Z 90 HOURS

#artificialintelligence

Electrification was, without a doubt, the greatest engineering marvel of the 20th century. The electric motor was invented way back in 1821, and the electrical circuit was mathematically analyzed in 1827. But factory electrification, household electrification, and railway electrification all started slowly several decades later. The field of AI was formally founded in 1956. But it's only now--more than six decades later--that AI is expected to revolutionize the way humanity will live and work in the coming decades.


Best Artificial Intelligence Learning Resources Online in 2021 – Techopedia

#artificialintelligence

If you want to cultivate a mathematical understanding of machine learning theory while covering basic probability, matrices and calculus, then this is …


Data Science & Machine Learning(Theory+Projects)A-Z 90 HOURS

#artificialintelligence

Electrification was, without a doubt, the greatest engineering marvel of the 20th century. The electric motor was invented way back in 1821, and the electrical circuit was mathematically analyzed in 1827. But factory electrification, household electrification, and railway electrification all started slowly several decades later. The field of AI was formally founded in 1956. But it's only now--more than six decades later--that AI is expected to revolutionize the way humanity will live and work in the coming decades.


User-friendly introduction to PAC-Bayes bounds

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Aggregated predictors are obtained by making a set of basic predictors vote according to some weights, that is, to some probability distribution. Randomized predictors are obtained by sampling in a set of basic predictors, according to some prescribed probability distribution. Thus, aggregated and randomized predictors have in common that they are not defined by a minimization problem, but by a probability distribution on the set of predictors. In statistical learning theory, there is a set of tools designed to understand the generalization ability of such procedures: PAC-Bayesian or PAC-Bayes bounds. Since the original PAC-Bayes bounds of D. McAllester, these tools have been considerably improved in many directions (we will for example describe a simplified version of the localization technique of O. Catoni that was missed by the community, and later rediscovered as "mutual information bounds"). Very recently, PAC-Bayes bounds received a considerable attention: for example there was workshop on PAC-Bayes at NIPS 2017, "(Almost) 50 Shades of Bayesian Learning: PAC-Bayesian trends and insights", organized by B. Guedj, F. Bach and P. Germain. One of the reason of this recent success is the successful application of these bounds to neural networks by G. Dziugaite and D. Roy. An elementary introduction to PAC-Bayes theory is still missing. This is an attempt to provide such an introduction.


NeuroComb: Improving SAT Solving with Graph Neural Networks

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Propositional satisfiability (SAT) is an NP-complete problem that impacts many research fields, such as planning, verification, and security. Despite the remarkable success of modern SAT solvers, scalability still remains a challenge. Main stream modern SAT solvers are based on the Conflict-Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) algorithm. Recent work aimed to enhance CDCL SAT solvers by improving its variable branching heuristics through predictions generated by Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). However, so far this approach either has not made solving more effective, or has required frequent online accesses to substantial GPU resources. Aiming to make GNN improvements practical, this paper proposes an approach called NeuroComb, which builds on two insights: (1) predictions of important variables and clauses can be combined with dynamic branching into a more effective hybrid branching strategy, and (2) it is sufficient to query the neural model only once for the predictions before the SAT solving starts. Implemented as an enhancement to the classic MiniSat solver, NeuroComb allowed it to solve 18.5% more problems on the recent SATCOMP-2020 competition problem set. NeuroComb is therefore a practical approach to improving SAT solving through modern machine learning.


An Experimental Study of Permanently Stored Learned Clauses

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Modern CDCL SAT solvers learn clauses rapidly, and an important heuristic is the clause deletion scheme. Most current solvers have two (or more) stores of clauses. One has ``valuable'' clauses which are never deleted. Most learned clauses are added to the other, with an aggressive deletion strategy to restrict its size. Recent solvers in the MapleSAT family, have comparatively complex deletion scheme, and perform well. Many solvers store only binary clauses permanently, but MapleLCMDistChronoBT stores clauses with small LBD permanently. We report an experimental study of the permanent clause store in MapleLCMDistChronoBT. We observe that this store can get quite large, but several methods for limiting its size reduced performance. We also show that alternate size and LBD based criteria improve performance, while still having large permanent stores. In particular, saving clauses up to size 8, and adding small numbers of high-centrality clauses, both improved performance, with the best improvement using both methods.


Learning Collaborative Policies to Solve NP-hard Routing Problems

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Recently, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) frameworks have shown potential for solving NP-hard routing problems such as the traveling salesman problem (TSP) without problem-specific expert knowledge. Although DRL can be used to solve complex problems, DRL frameworks still struggle to compete with state-of-the-art heuristics showing a substantial performance gap. This paper proposes a novel hierarchical problem-solving strategy, termed learning collaborative policies (LCP), which can effectively find the near-optimum solution using two iterative DRL policies: the seeder and reviser. The seeder generates as diversified candidate solutions as possible (seeds) while being dedicated to exploring over the full combinatorial action space (i.e., sequence of assignment action). To this end, we train the seeder's policy using a simple yet effective entropy regularization reward to encourage the seeder to find diverse solutions. On the other hand, the reviser modifies each candidate solution generated by the seeder; it partitions the full trajectory into sub-tours and simultaneously revises each sub-tour to minimize its traveling distance. Thus, the reviser is trained to improve the candidate solution's quality, focusing on the reduced solution space (which is beneficial for exploitation). Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed two-policies collaboration scheme improves over single-policy DRL framework on various NP-hard routing problems, including TSP, prize collecting TSP (PCTSP), and capacitated vehicle routing problem (CVRP).


Transductive Robust Learning Guarantees

arXiv.org Machine Learning

We study the problem of adversarially robust learning in the transductive setting. For classes $\mathcal{H}$ of bounded VC dimension, we propose a simple transductive learner that when presented with a set of labeled training examples and a set of unlabeled test examples (both sets possibly adversarially perturbed), it correctly labels the test examples with a robust error rate that is linear in the VC dimension and is adaptive to the complexity of the perturbation set. This result provides an exponential improvement in dependence on VC dimension over the best known upper bound on the robust error in the inductive setting, at the expense of competing with a more restrictive notion of optimal robust error.


Causal Direction of Data Collection Matters: Implications of Causal and Anticausal Learning for NLP

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

The principle of independent causal mechanisms (ICM) states that generative processes of real world data consist of independent modules which do not influence or inform each other. While this idea has led to fruitful developments in the field of causal inference, it is not widely-known in the NLP community. In this work, we argue that the causal direction of the data collection process bears nontrivial implications that can explain a number of published NLP findings, such as differences in semi-supervised learning (SSL) and domain adaptation (DA) performance across different settings. We categorize common NLP tasks according to their causal direction and empirically assay the validity of the ICM principle for text data using minimum description length. We conduct an extensive meta-analysis of over 100 published SSL and 30 DA studies, and find that the results are consistent with our expectations based on causal insights. This work presents the first attempt to analyze the ICM principle in NLP, and provides constructive suggestions for future modeling choices. Code available at https://github.com/zhijing-jin/icm4nlp