In PU learning, a binary classifier is trained from positive (P) and unlabeled (U) data without negative (N) data. Although N data is missing, it sometimes outperforms PN learning (i.e., ordinary supervised learning). Hitherto, neither theoretical nor experimental analysis has been given to explain this phenomenon. In this paper, we theoretically compare PU (and NU) learning against PN learning based on the upper bounds on estimation errors. We find simple conditions when PU and NU learning are likely to outperform PN learning, and we prove that, in terms of the upper bounds, either PU or NU learning (depending on the class-prior probability and the sizes of P and N data) given infinite U data will improve on PN learning. Our theoretical findings well agree with the experimental results on artificial and benchmark data even when the experimental setup does not match the theoretical assumptions exactly.

The result of standardization (or Z-score normalization) is that the features will be rescaled so that they'll have the properties of a standard normal distribution with Standardizing the features so that they are centered around 0 with a standard deviation of 1 is not only important if we are comparing measurements that have different units, but it is also a general requirement for many machine learning algorithms. Intuitively, we can think of gradient descent as a prominent example (an optimization algorithm often used in logistic regression, SVMs, perceptrons, neural networks etc.); with features being on different scales, certain weights may update faster than others since the feature values play a role in the weight updates Other intuitive examples include K-Nearest Neighbor algorithms and clustering algorithms that use, for example, Euclidean distance measures – in fact, tree-based classifier are probably the only classifiers where feature scaling doesn't make a difference. In fact, the only family of algorithms that I could think of being scale-invariant are tree-based methods. Let's take the general CART decision tree algorithm. Without going into much depth regarding information gain and impurity measures, we can think of the decision as "is feature x_i some_val?"

Deep learning is sometimes referred to as the intersection between machine learning and artificial intelligence. It is about designing algorithms that can make robots intelligent, such a face recognition techniques used in drones to detect and target terrorists, or pattern recognition / computer vision algorithms to automatically pilot a plane, a train, a boat or a car. Many deep learning algorithms (clustering, pattern recognition, automated bidding, recommendation engine, and so on) -- even though they appear in new contexts such as IoT or machine to machine communication -- still rely on relatively old-fashioned techniques such as logistic regression, SVM, decision trees, K-NN, naive Bayes, Bayesian modeling, ensembles, random forests, signal processing, filtering, graph theory, gaming theory, and many others. Some are new, such as indexation algorithms to automate digital publishing, improve search engines, or create and manage large catalogs such as Amazon's product listing. As a result, many deep learning practitioners call themselves data scientist, computer scientist, statistician, or sometimes engineer.

We propose a geometric algorithm for topic learning and inference that is built on the convex geometry of topics arising from the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model and its nonparametric extensions. To this end we study the optimization of a geometric loss function, which is a surrogate to the LDA's likelihood. Our method involves a fast optimization based weighted clustering procedure augmented with geometric corrections, which overcomes the computational and statistical inefficiencies encountered by other techniques based on Gibbs sampling and variational inference, while achieving the accuracy comparable to that of a Gibbs sampler. The topic estimates produced by our method are shown to be statistically consistent under some conditions. The algorithm is evaluated with extensive experiments on simulated and real data.

Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) is a popular tool for data exploration. Bayesian NMF promises to also characterize uncertainty in the factorization. Unfortunately, current inference approaches such as MCMC mix slowly and tend to get stuck on single modes. We introduce a novel approach using rapidly-exploring random trees (RRTs) to asymptotically cover regions of high posterior density. These are placed in a principled Bayesian framework via an online extension to nonparametric variational inference. On experiments on real and synthetic data, we obtain greater coverage of the posterior and higher ELBO values than standard NMF inference approaches.

In this paper, we discuss structure learning of causal networks from multiple data sets obtained by external intervention experiments where we do not know what variables are manipulated. For example, the conditions in these experiments are changed by changing temperature or using drugs, but we do not know what target variables are manipulated by the external interventions. From such data sets, the structure learning becomes more difficult. For this case, we first discuss the identifiability of causal structures. Next we present a graph-merging method for learning causal networks for the case that the sample sizes are large for these interventions. Then for the case that the sample sizes of these interventions are relatively small, we propose a data-pooling method for learning causal networks in which we pool all data sets of these interventions together for the learning. Further we propose a re-sampling approach to evaluate the edges of the causal network learned by the data-pooling method. Finally we illustrate the proposed learning methods by simulations.

The problem of forecasting conditional probabilities of the next event given the past is considered in a general probabilistic setting. Given an arbitrary (large, uncountable) set C of predictors, we would like to construct a single predictor that performs asymptotically as well as the best predictor in C, on any data. Here we show that there are sets C for which such predictors exist, but none of them is a Bayesian predictor with a prior concentrated on C. In other words, there is a predictor with sublinear regret, but every Bayesian predictor must have a linear regret. This negative finding is in sharp contrast with previous results that establish the opposite for the case when one of the predictors in $C$ achieves asymptotically vanishing error. In such a case, if there is a predictor that achieves asymptotically vanishing error for any measure in C, then there is a Bayesian predictor that also has this property, and whose prior is concentrated on (a countable subset of) C.

We propose a penalized likelihood method to fit the linear discriminant analysis model when the predictor is matrix valued. We simultaneously estimate the means and the precision matrix, which we assume has a Kronecker product decomposition. Our penalties encourage pairs of response category mean matrices to have equal entries and also encourage zeros in the precision matrix. To compute our estimators, we use a blockwise coordinate descent algorithm. To update the optimization variables corresponding to response category mean matrices, we use an alternating minimization algorithm that takes advantage of the Kronecker structure of the precision matrix. We show that our method can outperform relevant competitors in classification, even when our modeling assumptions are violated. We analyze an EEG dataset to demonstrate our method's interpretability and classification accuracy.

It is no doubt that the sub-field of machine learning / artificial intelligence has increasingly gained more popularity in the past couple of years. As Big Data is the hottest trend in the tech industry at the moment, machine learning is incredibly powerful to make predictions or calculated suggestions based on large amounts of data. Some of the most common examples of machine learning are Netflix's algorithms to make movie suggestions based on movies you have watched in the past or Amazon's algorithms that recommend books based on books you have bought before. So if you want to learn more about machine learning, how do you start? For me, my first introduction is when I took an Artificial Intelligence class when I was studying abroad in Copenhagen. My lecturer is a full-time Applied Math and CS professor at the Technical University of Denmark, in which his research areas are logic and artificial, focusing primarily on the use of logic to model human-like planning, reasoning and problem solving.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a vast area of Computer Science that is concerned with the interaction between Computers and Human Language[1]. Within NLP many tasks are – or can be reformulated as – classification tasks. In classification tasks we are trying to produce a classification function which can give the correlation between a certain'feature' and a class . This Classifier first has to be trained with a training dataset, and then it can be used to actually classify documents. Training means that we have to determine its model parameters.