In an earlier blog, "Need for DYNAMICAL Machine Learning: Bayesian exact recursive estimation", I introduced the need for Dynamical ML as we now enter the "Walk" stage of "Crawl-Walk-Run" evolution of machine learning. First, I defined Static ML as follows: Given a set of inputs and outputs, find a static map between the two during supervised "Training" and use this static map for business purposes during "Operation". I made the following points using IoT as an example. Dynamical ML solution involves State-Space data model (more below). What more does a Dynamical ML solution offer?

Many natural systems, such as neurons firing in the brain or basketball teams traversing a court, give rise to time series data with complex, nonlinear dynamics. We can gain insight into these systems by decomposing the data into segments that are each explained by simpler dynamic units. Building on switching linear dynamical systems (SLDS), we present a new model class that not only discovers these dynamical units, but also explains how their switching behavior depends on observations or continuous latent states. These "recurrent" switching linear dynamical systems provide further insight by discovering the conditions under which each unit is deployed, something that traditional SLDS models fail to do. We leverage recent algorithmic advances in approximate inference to make Bayesian inference in these models easy, fast, and scalable.

Neural circuits contain heterogeneous groups of neurons that differ in type, location, connectivity, and basic response properties. However, traditional methods for dimensionality reduction and clustering are ill-suited to recovering the structure underlying the organization of neural circuits. In particular, they do not take advantage of the rich temporal dependencies in multi-neuron recordings and fail to account for the noise in neural spike trains. Here we describe new tools for inferring latent structure from simultaneously recorded spike train data using a hierarchical extension of a multi-neuron point process model commonly known as the generalized linear model (GLM). Our approach combines the GLM with flexible graph-theoretic priors governing the relationship between latent features and neural connectivity patterns. Fully Bayesian inference via P\'olya-gamma augmentation of the resulting model allows us to classify neurons and infer latent dimensions of circuit organization from correlated spike trains. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method with applications to synthetic data and multi-neuron recordings in primate retina, revealing latent patterns of neural types and locations from spike trains alone.

The Machine learning report evaluates technologies and applications in terms of their business impact, adoption rate and maturity level to help users decide where and when to invest. The Predictive Analytics Scores below – ordered on Forecasted Future Needs and Demand from High to Low – shows you Machine learning's Predictive Analysis. The link takes you to a corresponding product in The Art of Service's store to get started. The Art of Service's predictive model results enable businesses to discover and apply the most profitable technologies and applications, attracting the most profitable customers, and therefore helping maximize value from their investments. The Predictive Analytics algorithm evaluates and scores technologies and applications.

We present a fast variational Bayesian algorithm for performing non-negative matrix factorisation and tri-factorisation. We show that our approach achieves faster convergence per iteration and timestep (wall-clock) than Gibbs sampling and non-probabilistic approaches, and do not require additional samples to estimate the posterior. We show that in particular for matrix tri-factorisation convergence is difficult, but our variational Bayesian approach offers a fast solution, allowing the tri-factorisation approach to be used more effectively.

Predictive modeling is increasingly being employed to assist human decision-makers. One purported advantage of replacing human judgment with computer models in high stakes settings-- such as sentencing, hiring, policing, college admissions, and parole decisions-- is the perceived "neutrality" of computers. It is argued that because computer models do not hold personal prejudice, the predictions they produce will be equally free from prejudice. There is growing recognition that employing algorithms does not remove the potential for bias, and can even amplify it, since training data were inevitably generated by a process that is itself biased. In this paper, we provide a probabilistic definition of algorithmic bias. We propose a method to remove bias from predictive models by removing all information regarding protected variables from the permitted training data. Unlike previous work in this area, our framework is general enough to accommodate arbitrary data types, e.g. binary, continuous, etc. Motivated by models currently in use in the criminal justice system that inform decisions on pre-trial release and paroling, we apply our proposed method to a dataset on the criminal histories of individuals at the time of sentencing to produce "race-neutral" predictions of re-arrest. In the process, we demonstrate that the most common approach to creating "race-neutral" models-- omitting race as a covariate-- still results in racially disparate predictions. We then demonstrate that the application of our proposed method to these data removes racial disparities from predictions with minimal impact on predictive accuracy.

Discussion[Discussion] How Gaussian naïve Bayes forms a non-linear decision boundary? Also, please explain decision boundary for decision trees. If the two gaussians are non isotropic you can derive that the bound is quadratic/elliptic curve.

Many statistical models can be simulated forwards but have intractable likelihoods. Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) methods are used to infer properties of these models from data. Traditionally these methods approximate the posterior over parameters by conditioning on data being inside an $\epsilon$-ball around the observed data, which is only correct in the limit $\epsilon\!\rightarrow\!0$. Monte Carlo methods can then draw samples from the approximate posterior to approximate predictions or error bars on parameters. These algorithms critically slow down as $\epsilon\!\rightarrow\!0$, and in practice draw samples from a broader distribution than the posterior. We propose a new approach to likelihood-free inference based on Bayesian conditional density estimation. Preliminary inferences based on limited simulation data are used to guide later simulations. In some cases, learning an accurate parametric representation of the entire true posterior distribution requires fewer model simulations than Monte Carlo ABC methods need to produce a single sample from an approximate posterior.

Methods for unsupervised anomaly detection suffer from the fact that the data is unlabeled, making it difficult to assess the optimality of detection algorithms. Ensemble learning has shown exceptional results in classification and clustering problems, but has not seen as much research in the context of outlier detection. Existing methods focus on combining output scores of individual detectors, but this leads to outputs that are not easily interpretable. In this paper, we introduce a theoretical foundation for combining individual detectors with Bayesian classifier combination. Not only are posterior distributions easily interpreted as the probability distribution of anomalies, but bias, variance, and individual error rates of detectors are all easily obtained. Performance on real-world datasets shows high accuracy across varied types of time series data.

Learning theory can be traced back to the late 60s and has attracted a great attention since. We refer to the monographs Devroye et al. (1996) and Vapnik (2000) for a survey. Most of the literature addresses the simplified case of i.i.d observations coupled with bounded loss functions. Many bounds on the excess risk holding with large probability were provided - these bounds are refered to as PAC learning bounds since Valiant (1984). In the late 90s, the PAC-Bayesian approach has been pioneered by Shawe-Taylor and Williamson (1997) and McAllester (1998, 1999). It consists in producing PAC bounds for a specific class of Bayesian-flavored estimators. Similarly to classical PAC results, most PAC-Bayesian bounds have been obtained with bounded loss functions (see Catoni, 2007, for some of the most accurate results). Note that Catoni (2004) provides bounds for unbouded loss, but still under very strong exponential moments assumptions. These assumptions were essentially not improved in the most recent works Guedj and Alquier (2013) and Bégin et al. (2016).