Despite the growing importance of multilingual aspect of web search, no appropriate offline metrics to evaluate its quality are proposed so far. At the same time, personal language preferences can be regarded as intents of a query. This approach translates the multilingual search problem into a particular task of search diversification. Furthermore, the standard intent-aware approach could be adopted to build a diversified metric for multilingual search on the basis of a classical IR metric such as ERR. The intent-aware approach estimates user satisfaction under a user behavior model. We show however that the underlying user behavior models is not realistic in the multilingual case, and the produced intent-aware metric do not appropriately estimate the user satisfaction. We develop a novel approach to build intent-aware user behavior models, which overcome these limitations and convert to quality metrics that better correlate with standard online metrics of user satisfaction.

Ranking a set of objects involves establishing an order allowing for comparisons between any pair of objects in the set. Oftentimes, due to the unavailability of a ground truth of ranked orders, researchers resort to obtaining judgments from multiple annotators followed by inferring the ground truth based on the collective knowledge of the crowd. However, the aggregation is often ad-hoc and involves imposing stringent assumptions in inferring the ground truth (e.g. majority vote). In this work, we propose Expectation-Maximization (EM) based algorithms that rely on the judgments from multiple annotators and the object attributes for inferring the latent ground truth. The algorithm learns the relation between the latent ground truth and object attributes as well as annotator specific probabilities of flipping, a metric to assess annotator quality. We further extend the EM algorithm to allow for a variable probability of flipping based on the pair of objects at hand. We test our algorithms on two data sets with synthetic annotations and investigate the impact of annotator quality and quantity on the inferred ground truth. We also obtain the results on two other data sets with annotations from machine/human annotators and interpret the output trends based on the data characteristics.

A key requirement for the current generation of artificial decision-makers is that they should adapt well to changes in unexpected situations. This paper addresses the situation in which an AI for aerial dog fighting, with tunable parameters that govern its behavior, must optimize behavior with respect to an objective function that is evaluated and learned through simulations. Bayesian optimization with a Gaussian Process surrogate is used as the method for investigating the objective function. One key benefit is that during optimization, the Gaussian Process learns a global estimate of the true objective function, with predicted outcomes and a statistical measure of confidence in areas that haven't been investigated yet. Having a model of the objective function is important for being able to understand possible outcomes in the decision space; for example this is crucial for training and providing feedback to human pilots. However, standard Bayesian optimization does not perform consistently or provide an accurate Gaussian Process surrogate function for highly volatile objective functions. We treat these problems by introducing a novel sampling technique called Hybrid Repeat/Multi-point Sampling. This technique gives the AI ability to learn optimum behaviors in a highly uncertain environment. More importantly, it not only improves the reliability of the optimization, but also creates a better model of the entire objective surface. With this improved model the agent is equipped to more accurately/efficiently predict performance in unexplored scenarios.

In recent years, we've seen a resurgence in AI, or artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Machine learning has led to some amazing results, like being able to analyze medical images and predict diseases on-par with human experts. Google's AlphaGo program was able to beat a world champion in the strategy game go using deep reinforcement learning. Machine learning is even being used to program self driving cars, which is going to change the automotive industry forever. Imagine a world with drastically reduced car accidents, simply by removing the element of human error.

It may sound trite, but humanity has come to dominate the world using this tool alone. Humans lack natural weapons, have no natural protection from the elements, and enter life as helpless infants. But our unique brains allow us to acquire, use, and communicate knowledge, and this advantage alone has allowed us to create the intricate social and technological reality we now inhabit. Our brains evolved to process, store, retrieve, and integrate sensory data into working knowledge that allows us to navigate reality. Until recently, humans were the only significant force that could translate raw data into accurate, actionable knowledge.

From Google search results to Netflix recommendations and investment strategies, Bayes Theorem (also often called Bayes Rule or Bayes Formula) is used across countless industries to help calculate and assess probability. Bayesian statistics is taught in most first-year statistics classes across the nation, but there is one major problem that many students (and others who are interested in the theorem) face. The theorem is not intuitive for most people, and understanding how it works can be a challenge, especially because it is often taught without visual aids. In this guide, we unpack the various components of the theorem and provide a basic overview of how it works – and with illustrations to help. Three scenarios – the flu, breathalyzer tests, and peacekeeping – are used throughout the booklet to teach how problems involving Bayes Theorem can be approached and solved.

The first paper I wrote for my PhD just got published! I started my PhD with the goal of critically examining the process and outcomes of social media science communication. Despite the flurry of activities in this domain and the huge amount of resources poured into digital public engagement activities, nobody (and I mean nobody) has ever paused to think, are we making any real change? Is the public more engaged with science and more scientifically literate than say, 10 years ago when Facebook and Twitter weren't the media giants they are today? Given my engineering background, I decided to use the method I know best to approach the problem.

The idea of cross-validation is to split the data into N subsets, to put one subset aside, to estimate parameters of the model from the remaining N-1 subsets, and to use the retained subset to estimate the error of the model. Such a process is repeated N times - with each of the N subsets being used as the validation set . Then the values of the errors obtained in such N steps are combined to provide the final estimate of the model error. The cross-validation is used in various classification and prediction procedures, such as regression analysis, discriminant analysis, neural networks and classification and regression trees (CART) . The goal is to improve the quality of the decision that is made from the outcome of the study on the basis of statistical methods, and to ensure that maximum information is obtained from scarce experimental data.

We show that the square Hellinger distance between two Bayesian networks on the same directed graph, $G$, is subadditive with respect to the neighborhoods of $G$. Namely, if $P$ and $Q$ are the probability distributions defined by two Bayesian networks on the same DAG, our inequality states that the square Hellinger distance, $H^2(P,Q)$, between $P$ and $Q$ is upper bounded by the sum, $\sum_v H^2(P_{\{v\} \cup \Pi_v}, Q_{\{v\} \cup \Pi_v})$, of the square Hellinger distances between the marginals of $P$ and $Q$ on every node $v$ and its parents $\Pi_v$ in the DAG. Importantly, our bound does not involve the conditionals but the marginals of $P$ and $Q$. We derive a similar inequality for more general Markov Random Fields. As an application of our inequality, we show that distinguishing whether two Bayesian networks $P$ and $Q$ on the same (but potentially unknown) DAG satisfy $P=Q$ vs $d_{\rm TV}(P,Q)>\epsilon$ can be performed from $\tilde{O}(|\Sigma|^{3/4(d+1)} \cdot n/\epsilon^2)$ samples, where $d$ is the maximum in-degree of the DAG and $\Sigma$ the domain of each variable of the Bayesian networks. If $P$ and $Q$ are defined on potentially different and potentially unknown trees, the sample complexity becomes $\tilde{O}(|\Sigma|^{4.5} n/\epsilon^2)$, whose dependence on $n, \epsilon$ is optimal up to logarithmic factors. Lastly, if $P$ and $Q$ are product distributions over $\{0,1\}^n$ and $Q$ is known, the sample complexity becomes $O(\sqrt{n}/\epsilon^2)$, which is optimal up to constant factors.

Bayesian Optimization (BO) has become a core method for solving expensive black-box optimization problems. While much research focussed on the choice of the acquisition function, we focus on online length-scale adaption and the choice of kernel function. Instead of choosing hyperparameters in view of maximum likelihood on past data, we propose to use the acquisition function to decide on hyperparameter adaptation more robustly and in view of the future optimization progress. Further, we propose a particular kernel function that includes non-stationarity and local anisotropy and thereby implicitly integrates the efficiency of local convex optimization with global Bayesian optimization. Comparisons to state-of-the art BO methods underline the efficiency of these mechanisms on global optimization benchmarks.