Originally published on Towards AI the World's Leading AI and Technology News and Media Company. If you are building an AI-related product or service, we invite you to consider becoming an AI sponsor. At Towards AI, we help scale AI and technology startups. Let us help you unleash your technology to the masses. I outline the 31 critical supervised learning models and reveal the top 5 as a must-learn.

An increased awareness concerning risks of algorithmic bias has driven a surge of efforts around bias mitigation strategies. A vast majority of the proposed approaches fall under one of two categories: (1) imposing algorithmic fairness constraints on predictive models, and (2) collecting additional training samples. Most recently and at the intersection of these two categories, methods that propose active learning under fairness constraints have been developed. However, proposed bias mitigation strategies typically overlook the bias presented in the observed labels. In this work, we study fairness considerations of active data collection strategies in the presence of label bias. We first present an overview of different types of label bias in the context of supervised learning systems. We then empirically show that, when overlooking label bias, collecting more data can aggravate bias, and imposing fairness constraints that rely on the observed labels in the data collection process may not address the problem. Our results illustrate the unintended consequences of deploying a model that attempts to mitigate a single type of bias while neglecting others, emphasizing the importance of explicitly differentiating between the types of bias that fairness-aware algorithms aim to address, and highlighting the risks of neglecting label bias during data collection.

Continually learning new classes from a few training examples without forgetting previous old classes demands a flexible architecture with an inevitably growing portion of storage, in which new examples and classes can be incrementally stored and efficiently retrieved. One viable architectural solution is to tightly couple a stationary deep neural network to a dynamically evolving explicit memory (EM). As the centerpiece of this architecture, we propose an EM unit that leverages energy-efficient in-memory compute (IMC) cores during the course of continual learning operations. We demonstrate for the first time how the EM unit can physically superpose multiple training examples, expand to accommodate unseen classes, and perform similarity search during inference, using operations on an IMC core based on phase-change memory (PCM). Specifically, the physical superposition of a few encoded training examples is realized via in-situ progressive crystallization of PCM devices. The classification accuracy achieved on the IMC core remains within a range of 1.28%--2.5% compared to that of the state-of-the-art full-precision baseline software model on both the CIFAR-100 and miniImageNet datasets when continually learning 40 novel classes (from only five examples per class) on top of 60 old classes.

This study discusses the effect of semi-supervised learning in combination with pretrained language models for data-to-text generation. It is not known whether semi-supervised learning is still helpful when a large-scale language model is also supplemented. This study aims to answer this question by comparing a data-to-text system only supplemented with a language model, to two data-to-text systems that are additionally enriched by a data augmentation or a pseudo-labeling semi-supervised learning approach. Results show that semi-supervised learning results in higher scores on diversity metrics. In terms of output quality, extending the training set of a data-to-text system with a language model using the pseudo-labeling approach did increase text quality scores, but the data augmentation approach yielded similar scores to the system without training set extension. These results indicate that semi-supervised learning approaches can bolster output quality and diversity, even when a language model is also present.

Supervised learning is a machine learning subset where a machine learning model is trained on labeled (inputs) data. As a result, the supervised model is capable of predicting further outcomes (outputs) as accurately as possible. The concept behind supervised learning can be explained from real-life scenarios such as a teacher tutoring a child about a new topic for the first time. For simplification, let's say that the teacher wants to teach the child to successfully identify the image of a cat and a dog. The teacher will start the tutoring process by continuously showing the child images of either a cat or a dog with the addition of having the teacher inform the child if the image is that of a dog or a cat.

The Mean-Teacher (MT) scheme is widely adopted in semi-supervised object detection (SSOD). In MT, the sparse pseudo labels, offered by the final predictions of the teacher (e.g., after Non Maximum Suppression (NMS) post-processing), are adopted for the dense supervision for the student via hand-crafted label assignment. However, the sparse-to-dense paradigm complicates the pipeline of SSOD, and simultaneously neglects the powerful direct, dense teacher supervision. In this paper, we attempt to directly leverage the dense guidance of teacher to supervise student training, i.e., the dense-to-dense paradigm. Specifically, we propose the Inverse NMS Clustering (INC) and Rank Matching (RM) to instantiate the dense supervision, without the widely used, conventional sparse pseudo labels. INC leads the student to group candidate boxes into clusters in NMS as the teacher does, which is implemented by learning grouping information revealed in NMS procedure of the teacher. After obtaining the same grouping scheme as the teacher via INC, the student further imitates the rank distribution of the teacher over clustered candidates through Rank Matching. With the proposed INC and RM, we integrate Dense Teacher Guidance into Semi-Supervised Object Detection (termed DTG-SSOD), successfully abandoning sparse pseudo labels and enabling more informative learning on unlabeled data. On COCO benchmark, our DTG-SSOD achieves state-of-the-art performance under various labelling ratios. For example, under 10% labelling ratio, DTG-SSOD improves the supervised baseline from 26.9 to 35.9 mAP, outperforming the previous best method Soft Teacher by 1.9 points.

This primer is an attempt to provide a detailed summary of the different facets of lifelong learning. We start with Chapter 2 which provides a high-level overview of lifelong learning systems. In this chapter, we discuss prominent scenarios in lifelong learning (Section 2.4), provide 8 Introduction a high-level organization of different lifelong learning approaches (Section 2.5), enumerate the desiderata for an ideal lifelong learning system (Section 2.6), discuss how lifelong learning is related to other learning paradigms (Section 2.7), describe common metrics used to evaluate lifelong learning systems (Section 2.8). This chapter is more useful for readers who are new to lifelong learning and want to get introduced to the field without focusing on specific approaches or benchmarks. The remaining chapters focus on specific aspects (either learning algorithms or benchmarks) and are more useful for readers who are looking for specific approaches or benchmarks. Chapter 3 focuses on regularization-based approaches that do not assume access to any data from previous tasks. Chapter 4 discusses memory-based approaches that typically use a replay buffer or an episodic memory to save subset of data across different tasks. Chapter 5 focuses on different architecture families (and their instantiations) that have been proposed for training lifelong learning systems. Following these different classes of learning algorithms, we discuss the commonly used evaluation benchmarks and metrics for lifelong learning (Chapter 6) and wrap up with a discussion of future challenges and important research directions in Chapter 7.

Machine learning is one of the fastest-growing fields in the current technological landscape and it refers to a branch of artificial intelligence that deals with the prediction of outcomes by imitating the way that humans learn and perceive things. When talking about the classification of machine learning, primarily two categories come to mind namely Supervised Learning and Unsupervised Learning. In the following article, I'll be discussing a median path between the two called Semi-Supervised Learning. The primary difference between supervised and unsupervised learning is the type of data used by the algorithms. Supervised learning works on labelled data while unsupervised learning works on grouping or classifying the data based on similarities or differences rather than labels.

In the field of machine learning, semi-supervised learning (SSL) occupies the middle ground, between supervised learning (in which all training examples are labeled) and unsupervised learning (in which no label data are given). Interest in SSL has increased in recent years, particularly because of application domains in which unlabeled data are plentiful, such as images, text, and bioinformatics. This first comprehensive overview of SSL presents state-of-the-art algorithms, a taxonomy of the field, selected applications, benchmark experiments, and perspectives on ongoing and future research.Semi-Supervised Learning first presents the key assumptions and ideas underlying the field: smoothness, cluster or low-density separation, manifold structure, and transduction. The core of the book is the presentation of SSL methods, organized according to algorithmic strategies. After an examination of generative models, the book describes algorithms that implement the low-density separation assumption, graph-based methods, and algorithms that perform two-step learning.

In the past few weeks, I've been doing research on Linear Regression in Data Science. This week, however, I wanted to change things up. We know a little bit about supervised learning methods and unsupervised learning methods, but we haven't spoken about a different type of learning: Reinforcement Learning.