Formal grammars are a popular class of knowledge representation that is traditionally confined to the modeling of natural and computer languages. However, several extensions of grammars have been proposed over time to model other types of data such as images [1, 2, 3] and events [4, 5, 6]. One prominent type of extension is stochastic And-Or grammars (AOG) [2]. A stochastic AOG simultaneously models compositions (i.e., a large pattern is the composition of several small patterns arranged according to a certain configuration) and reconfigurations (i.e., a pattern may have several alternative configurations), and in this way it can compactly represent a probabilistic distribution over a large number of patterns. Stochastic AOGs can be used to parse data samples into their compositional structures, which help solve multiple tasks (such as classification, annotation, and segmentation of the data samples) in a unified manner. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61503248).

Naive Bayes is a simple but surprisingly powerful algorithm for predictive modeling. In this post you will discover the Naive Bayes algorithm for classification. This post is written for developers and does not assume any background in statistics or probability, although knowing a little probability wouldn't hurt. Naive Bayes for Machine Learning Photo by John Morgan, some rights reserved. In machine learning we are often interested in selecting the best hypothesis (h) given data (d).

This was the subject of a question asked on Quora: What are the top 10 data mining or machine learning algorithms? Some modern algorithms such as collaborative filtering, recommendation engine, segmentation, or attribution modeling, are missing from the lists below. Algorithms from graph theory (to find the shortest path in a graph, or to detect connected components), from operations research (the simplex, to optimize the supply chain), or from time series, are not listed either. And I could not find MCM (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) and related algorithms used to process hierarchical, spatio-temporal and other Bayesian models. My point of view is of course biased, but I would like to also add some algorithms developed or re-developed at the Data Science Central's research lab: These algorithms are described in the article What you wont learn in statistics classes.

So you know the Bayes rule. How does it relate to machine learning? It can be quite difficult to grasp how the puzzle pieces fit together - we know it took us a while. This article is an introduction we wish we had back then. While we have some grasp on the matter, we're not experts, so the following might contain inaccuracies or even outright errors. Feel free to point them out, either in the comments or privately.

Coregulation of the expression of groups of genes has been extensively demonstrated empirically in bacterial and eukaryotic systems. Such coregulation can arise through the use of shared regulatory motifs, which allow the coordinated expression of modules (and module groups) of functionally related genes across the genome. Coregulation can also arise through the physical association of multi-gene complexes through chromosomal looping, which are then transcribed together. We present a general formalism for modeling coregulation rules in the framework of Random Boolean Networks (RBN), and develop specific models for transcription factor networks with modular structure (including module groups, and multi-input modules (MIM) with autoregulation) and multi-gene complexes (including hierarchical differentiation between multi-gene complex members). We develop a mean-field approach to analyse the stability of large networks incorporating coregulation, and show that autoregulated MIM and hierarchical gene-complex models can achieve greater stability than networks without coregulation whose rules have matching activation frequency. We provide further analysis of the stability of small networks of both kinds through simulations. We also characterize several general properties of the transients and attractors in the hierarchical coregulation model, and show using simulations that the steady-state distribution factorizes hierarchically as a Bayesian network in a Markov Jump Process analogue of the RBN model.

Its a constant that you use to normalize, right? And what comes after the normalizing constant in the equation is a vector, right? The authors are using Z' so that you know that the vector always gets normalized, you don't just calculate a constant at the start of training and reuse the same constant each time you calculate as the vector moves off normal.

We revisit the development of grid based recursive approximate filtering of general Markov processes in discrete time, partially observed in conditionally Gaussian noise. The grid based filters considered rely on two types of state quantization: The \textit{Markovian} type and the \textit{marginal} type. We propose a set of novel, relaxed sufficient conditions, ensuring strong and fully characterized pathwise convergence of these filters to the respective MMSE state estimator. In particular, for marginal state quantizations, we introduce the notion of \textit{conditional regularity of stochastic kernels}, which, to the best of our knowledge, constitutes the most relaxed condition proposed, under which asymptotic optimality of the respective grid based filters is guaranteed. Further, we extend our convergence results, including filtering of bounded and continuous functionals of the state, as well as recursive approximate state prediction. For both Markovian and marginal quantizations, the whole development of the respective grid based filters relies more on linear-algebraic techniques and less on measure theoretic arguments, making the presentation considerably shorter and technically simpler.

We study the problem of learning sparse structure changes between two Markov networks $P$ and $Q$. Rather than fitting two Markov networks separately to two sets of data and figuring out their differences, a recent work proposed to learn changes \emph{directly} via estimating the ratio between two Markov network models. In this paper, we give sufficient conditions for \emph{successful change detection} with respect to the sample size $n_p, n_q$, the dimension of data $m$, and the number of changed edges $d$. When using an unbounded density ratio model we prove that the true sparse changes can be consistently identified for $n_p = \Omega(d^2 \log \frac{m^2+m}{2})$ and $n_q = \Omega({n_p^2})$, with an exponentially decaying upper-bound on learning error. Such sample complexity can be improved to $\min(n_p, n_q) = \Omega(d^2 \log \frac{m^2+m}{2})$ when the boundedness of the density ratio model is assumed. Our theoretical guarantee can be applied to a wide range of discrete/continuous Markov networks.

Covariance Is 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

KNN can easily be mapped to our real lives. If you want to learn about a person, of whom you have no information, you might like to find out about his close friends and the circles he moves in and gain access to his/her information! It is a type of unsupervised algorithm which solves the clustering problem. Its procedure follows a simple and easy way to classify a given data set through a certain number of clusters (assume k clusters). Data points inside a cluster are homogeneous and heterogeneous to peer groups. Remember figuring out shapes from ink blots?