Here we discuss general applications of statistical models, whether they arise from data science, operations research, engineering, machine learning or statistics. We do not discuss specific algorithms such as decision trees, logistic regression, Bayesian modeling, Markov models, data reduction or feature selection. Instead, I discuss frameworks - each one using its own types of techniques and algorithms - to solve real life problems. Most of the entries below are found in Wikipedia, and I have used a few definitions or extracts from the relevant Wikipedia articles, in addition to personal contributions. Spatial dependency is the co-variation of properties within geographic space: characteristics at proximal locations appear to be correlated, either positively or negatively. Methods for time series analyses may be divided into two classes: frequency-domain methods and time-domain methods.

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.

One of the central themes in Sum-Product networks (SPNs) is the interpretation of sum nodes as marginalized latent variables (LVs). This interpretation yields an increased syntactic or semantic structure, allows the application of the EM algorithm and to efficiently perform MPE inference. In literature, the LV interpretation was justified by explicitly introducing the indicator variables corresponding to the LVs' states. However, as pointed out in this paper, this approach is in conflict with the completeness condition in SPNs and does not fully specify the probabilistic model. We propose a remedy for this problem by modifying the original approach for introducing the LVs, which we call SPN augmentation. We discuss conditional independencies in augmented SPNs, formally establish the probabilistic interpretation of the sum-weights and give an interpretation of augmented SPNs as Bayesian networks. Based on these results, we find a sound derivation of the EM algorithm for SPNs. Furthermore, the Viterbi-style algorithm for MPE proposed in literature was never proven to be correct. We show that this is indeed a correct algorithm, when applied to selective SPNs, and in particular when applied to augmented SPNs. Our theoretical results are confirmed in experiments on synthetic data and 103 real-world datasets.

Abstract--In this paper we propose a novel approach for learning from data using rule based fuzzy inference systems where the model parameters are estimated using Bayesian inference and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques. We show the applicability of the method for regression and classification tasks using synthetic data-sets and also a real world example in the financial services industry. Then we demonstrate how the method can be extended for knowledge extraction to select the individual rules in a Bayesian way which best explains the given data. Finally we discuss the advantages and pitfalls of using this method over state-of-the-art techniques and highlight the specific class of problems where this would be useful. ROBABILITY theory and fuzzy logic have been shown to be complementary [1] and various works have looked at the symbiotic integration of these two paradigms [2], [3] including the recently introduced concept of Z-numbers [4]. Historically fuzzy logic has been applied to problems involving imprecision in linguistic variables, while probability theory has been used for quantifying uncertainty in a wide range of disciplines. V arious generalisations and extensions of fuzzy sets have been proposed to incorporate uncertainty and vagueness which arise from multiple sources. For example, the type-2 fuzzy [5], [6] sets and type-n fuzzy sets [5] can include uncertainty while defining the membership functions themselves. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets [7] additionally introduce the degree of non-membership of an element to take into account that there might be some hesitation degree and the degree of membership and non-membership of an element might not always add to one. Non-stationary fuzzy sets [8] can model variation of opinion over time by defining a collection of type 1 fuzzy sets and an explicit relationship between them. Fuzzy multi-sets [9] generalise crisp sets where multiple occurrences of an element are permitted. Hesitant fuzzy sets [10] have been proposed from the motivation that the problem of assigning a degree of membership to an element is not because of a margin of error (like Atanassov's intuitionistic fuzzy sets) or a possibility distribution on possibility values (e.g. Formally these can be viewed as fuzzy multi-sets but with a different interpretation.

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.