When recovering an unknown signal from noisy measurements, the computational difficulty of performing optimal Bayesian MMSE (minimum mean squared error) inference often necessitates the use of maximum a posteriori (MAP) inference, a special case of regularized M-estimation, as a surrogate. However, MAP is suboptimal in high dimensions, when the number of unknown signal components is similar to the number of measurements. In this work we demonstrate, when the signal distribution and the likelihood function associated with the noise are both log-concave, that optimal MMSE performance is asymptotically achievable via another M-estimation procedure. This procedure involves minimizing convex loss and regularizer functions that are nonlinearly smoothed versions of the widely applied MAP optimization problem. Our findings provide a new heuristic derivation and interpretation for recent optimal M-estimators found in the setting of linear measurements and additive noise, and further extend these results to nonlinear measurements with non-additive noise. We numerically demonstrate superior performance of our optimal M-estimators relative to MAP. Overall, at the heart of our work is the revelation of a remarkable equivalence between two seemingly very different computational problems: namely that of high dimensional Bayesian integration underlying MMSE inference, and high dimensional convex optimization underlying M-estimation. In essence we show that the former difficult integral may be computed by solving the latter, simpler optimization problem.

Bibliographic analysis considers the author's research areas, the citation network and the paper content among other things. In this paper, we combine these three in a topic model that produces a bibliographic model of authors, topics and documents, using a nonparametric extension of a combination of the Poisson mixed-topic link model and the author-topic model. This gives rise to the Citation Network Topic Model (CNTM). We propose a novel and efficient inference algorithm for the CNTM to explore subsets of research publications from CiteSeerX. The publication datasets are organised into three corpora, totalling to about 168k publications with about 62k authors. The queried datasets are made available online. In three publicly available corpora in addition to the queried datasets, our proposed model demonstrates an improved performance in both model fitting and document clustering, compared to several baselines. Moreover, our model allows extraction of additional useful knowledge from the corpora, such as the visualisation of the author-topics network. Additionally, we propose a simple method to incorporate supervision into topic modelling to achieve further improvement on the clustering task.

The Dirichlet process and its extension, the Pitman-Yor process, are stochastic processes that take probability distributions as a parameter. These processes can be stacked up to form a hierarchical nonparametric Bayesian model. In this article, we present efficient methods for the use of these processes in this hierarchical context, and apply them to latent variable models for text analytics. In particular, we propose a general framework for designing these Bayesian models, which are called topic models in the computer science community. We then propose a specific nonparametric Bayesian topic model for modelling text from social media. We focus on tweets (posts on Twitter) in this article due to their ease of access. We find that our nonparametric model performs better than existing parametric models in both goodness of fit and real world applications.

We describe a method for parameter estimation in bipartite probabilistic graphical models for joint prediction of clinical conditions from the electronic medical record. The method does not rely on the availability of gold-standard labels, but rather uses noisy labels, called anchors, for learning. We provide a likelihood-based objective and a moments-based initialization that are effective at learning the model parameters. The learned model is evaluated in a task of assigning a heldout clinical condition to patients based on retrospective analysis of the records, and outperforms baselines which do not account for the noisiness in the labels or do not model the conditions jointly.

How to increase Naive Bayes accuracy? Total size of dataset was 81. Ok so I ran the program against test data and it gave me accuracy of 21% only. Can anyone tell me why is like that? Where am I going wrong?

I am learning NB algorithm and implementing on a real dataset that contains only 80 records. Now I want to prepare training data. I want to know whether training data is made from the actual data or the actual pattern given in real data? Also, does training data means covering all cases given in real data or what?

Non-stationary continuous time Bayesian networks are introduced. They allow the parents set of each node to change over continuous time. Three settings are developed for learning non-stationary continuous time Bayesian networks from data: known transition times, known number of epochs and unknown number of epochs. A score function for each setting is derived and the corresponding learning algorithm is developed. A set of numerical experiments on synthetic data is used to compare the effectiveness of non-stationary continuous time Bayesian networks to that of non-stationary dynamic Bayesian networks. Furthermore, the performance achieved by non-stationary continuous time Bayesian networks is compared to that achieved by state-of-the-art algorithms on four real-world datasets, namely drosophila, saccharomyces cerevisiae, songbird and macroeconomics.

Sparse versions of principal component analysis (PCA) have imposed themselves as simple, yet powerful ways of selecting relevant features of high-dimensional data in an unsupervised manner. However, when several sparse principal components are computed, the interpretation of the selected variables is difficult since each axis has its own sparsity pattern and has to be interpreted separately. To overcome this drawback, we propose a Bayesian procedure called globally sparse probabilistic PCA (GSPPCA) that allows to obtain several sparse components with the same sparsity pattern. This allows the practitioner to identify the original variables which are relevant to describe the data. To this end, using Roweis' probabilistic interpretation of PCA and a Gaussian prior on the loading matrix, we provide the first exact computation of the marginal likelihood of a Bayesian PCA model. To avoid the drawbacks of discrete model selection, a simple relaxation of this framework is presented. It allows to find a path of models using a variational expectation-maximization algorithm. The exact marginal likelihood is then maximized over this path. This approach is illustrated on real and synthetic data sets. In particular, using unlabeled microarray data, GSPPCA infers much more relevant gene subsets than traditional sparse PCA algorithms.

Bayes's Theorem fundamentally is based on the concept of "validity of Beliefs". Reverend Thomas Bayes was a Presbyterian minster and a Mathematician who pondered much about developing the proof of existence of God. He came up with the Theorem in 18th century (which was later refined by Pierre-Simmon Laplace) to fix or establish the validity of'existing' or'previous' Beliefs in the face of best available'new' evidence. Think of it as a equation to correct prior beliefs based on new evidence. One of the popular example used to explain Bayes's Theorem is to detect if a patient has a certain disease or not.

As the term "machine learning" has heated up, interest in "robotics" (as expressed in Google Trends) has not altered much over the last three years. So how much of a place is there for machine learning in robotics? While only a portion of recent developments in robotics can be credited to developments and uses of machine learning, I've aimed to collect some of the more prominent applications together in this article, along with links and references. Before I delve into machine learning in robotics, go ahead and define "robot". Though at first this might seem simple, it's no easy task to come to an agreement on just what a robot is and what it is not, even amongst roboticists.