Limited annotated data available for the recognition of facial expression and action units embarrasses the training of deep networks, which can learn disentangled invariant features. However, a linear model with just several parameters normally is not demanding in terms of training data. In this paper, we propose an elegant linear model to untangle confounding factors in challenging realistic multichannel signals such as 2D face videos. The simple yet powerful model does not rely on huge training data and is natural for recognizing facial actions without explicitly disentangling the identity. Base on well-understood intuitive linear models such as Sparse Representation based Classification (SRC), previous attempts require a prepossessing of explicit decoupling which is practically inexact. Instead, we exploit the low-rank property across frames to subtract the underlying neutral faces which are modeled jointly with sparse representation on the action components with group sparsity enforced. On the extended Cohn-Kanade dataset (CK+), our one-shot automatic method on raw face videos performs as competitive as SRC applied on manually prepared action components and performs even better than SRC in terms of true positive rate. We apply the model to the even more challenging task of facial action unit recognition, verified on the MPI Face Video Database (MPI-VDB) achieving a decent performance. All the programs and data have been made publicly available.

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers have finally cracked problems that they've worked on for decades, from Go to human-level speech recognition. A key piece was the ability to gather and learn on mountains of data, which pulled error rates past the success line. In short, big data has transformed AI, to an almost unreasonable level. Blockchain technology could transform AI too, in its own particular ways. Some applications of blockchains to AI are mundane, like audit trails on AI models. Some appear almost unreasonable, like AI that can own itself -- AI DAOs. All of them are opportunities. This article will explore these applications. Before we discuss applications, let's first review what's different about blockchains compared to traditional big-data distributed databases like MongoDB. We can think of blockchains as "blue ocean" databases: they escape the "bloody red ocean" of sharks competing in an existing market, opting instead to be in a blue ocean of uncontested market space. Famous blue ocean examples are Wii for video game consoles (compromise raw performance, but have new mode of interaction), or Yellow Tail for wines (ignore the pretentious specs for wine lovers; make wine more accessible to beer lovers). By traditional database standards, traditional blockchains like Bitcoin are terrible: low throughput, low capacity, high latency, poor query support, and so on.

And, it was first published on Dataconomy on Dec 21, 2016; I'm reposting here for ease of access.] In recent years, AI (artificial intelligence) researchers have finally cracked problems that they've worked on for decades, from Go to human-level speech recognition. A key piece was the ability to gather and learn on mountains of data, which pulled error rates past the success line. In short, big data has transformed AI, to an almost unreasonable level. Blockchain technology could transform AI too, in its own particular ways. Some applications of blockchains to AI are mundane, like audit trails on AI models. Some appear almost unreasonable, like AI that can own itself -- AI DAOs. All of them are opportunities. This article will explore these applications. Before we discuss applications, let's first review what's different about blockchains compared to traditional big-data distributed databases like MongoDB. We can think of blockchains as "blue ocean" databases: they escape the "bloody red ocean" of sharks competing in an existing market, opting instead to be in a blue ocean of uncontested market space.

How do you know what machine learning algorithm to choose for your classification problem? Of course, if you really care about accuracy, your best bet is to test out a couple different ones (making sure to try different parameters within each algorithm as well), and select the best one by cross-validation. But if you're simply looking for a "good enough" algorithm for your problem, or a place to start, here are some general guidelines I've found to work well over the years. If your training set is small, high bias/low variance classifiers (e.g., Naive Bayes) have an advantage over low bias/high variance classifiers (e.g., kNN), since the latter will overfit. But low bias/high variance classifiers start to win out as your training set grows (they have lower asymptotic error), since high bias classifiers aren't powerful enough to provide accurate models.

Here is possible to find the application of the Naive Bayes approach to a specific problem: the classification of SMS into spam ("an undesired messages, e.g. The supporting code can be found here. The data used for such playground activity is the SMS Spam Collection v. 1, a public set of SMS messages that have been collected for mobile phone spam research where each message has been properly labeled as spam or ham. 'In machine learning and statistics, classification is the problem of identifying to which of a set of categories (sub-populations) a new observation belongs, on the basis of a training set of data containing observations (or instances) whose category membership is known. An example would be assigning a given email into "spam" or "non-spam" classes or assigning a diagnosis to a given patient as described by observed characteristics of the patient (gender, blood pressure, presence or absence of certain symptoms, etc.).

Processes such as disease propagation and information diffusion often spread over some latent network structure which must be learned from observation. Given a set of unlabeled training examples representing occurrences of an event type of interest (e.g., a disease outbreak), our goal is to learn a graph structure that can be used to accurately detect future events of that type. Motivated by new theoretical results on the consistency of constrained and unconstrained subset scans, we propose a novel framework for learning graph structure from unlabeled data by comparing the most anomalous subsets detected with and without the graph constraints. Our framework uses the mean normalized log-likelihood ratio score to measure the quality of a graph structure, and efficiently searches for the highest-scoring graph structure. Using simulated disease outbreaks injected into real-world Emergency Department data from Allegheny County, we show that our method learns a structure similar to the true underlying graph, but enables faster and more accurate detection.

The problem of outlier detection is extremely challenging in many domains such as text, in which the attribute values are typically non-negative, and most values are zero. In such cases, it often becomes difficult to separate the outliers from the natural variations in the patterns in the underlying data. In this paper, we present a matrix factorization method, which is naturally able to distinguish the anomalies with the use of low rank approximations of the underlying data. Our iterative algorithm TONMF is based on block coordinate descent (BCD) framework. We define blocks over the term-document matrix such that the function becomes solvable. Given most recently updated values of other matrix blocks, we always update one block at a time to its optimal. Our approach has significant advantages over traditional methods for text outlier detection. Finally, we present experimental results illustrating the effectiveness of our method over competing methods.

Cleaning and preparing data is a critical first step in any machine learning project. In this blog post, Dataquest student Daniel Osei's takes us through examining a dataset, selecting columns for features, exploring the data visually and then encoding the features for machine learning. This post is based on a Dataquest'Monthly Challenge', where our students are given a free-form task to complete. After first reading about Machine Learning on Quora in 2015, Daniel became excited at the prospect of an area that could combine his love of Mathematics and Programming. After reading this article on how to learn data science, Daniel started following the steps, eventually joining Dataquest to learn Data Science with us in in April 2016. We'd like to thank Daniel for his hard work, and generously letting us publish this post.

Machine learning is everywhere in the world of cybersecurity these days. It is often thought of as the magic bullet to secure systems and networks -- a tool able to identify previously invisible attacks through a nontransparent set of functions, as in neural nets. Transparency aside, neural nets and other algorithms have indeed proven very effective. Security professionals run into a distinct problem when attempting to do this, however. Machine learning classifiers perform much better in the supervised case, where labeled data is available.

The monitoring of sleep patterns without patient's inconvenience or involvement of a medical specialist is a clinical question of significant importance. To this end, we propose an automatic sleep stage monitoring system based on an affordable, unobtrusive, discreet, and long-term wearable in-ear sensor for recording the Electroencephalogram (ear-EEG). The selected features for sleep pattern classification from a single ear-EEG channel include the spectral edge frequency (SEF) and multi- scale fuzzy entropy (MSFE), a structural complexity feature. In this preliminary study, the manually scored hypnograms from simultaneous scalp-EEG and ear-EEG recordings of four subjects are used as labels for two analysis scenarios: 1) classification of ear-EEG hypnogram labels from ear-EEG recordings and 2) prediction of scalp-EEG hypnogram labels from ear-EEG recordings. We consider both 2-class and 4-class sleep scoring, with the achieved accuracies ranging from 78.5 % to 95.2 % for ear-EEG labels predicted from ear-EEG, and 76.8 % to 91.8 % for scalp-EEG labels predicted from ear-EEG. The corresponding kappa coefficients, which range from 0.64 to 0.83 for Scenario 1 and from 0.65 to 0.80 for Scenario 2, indicate a Substantial to Almost Perfect agreement, thus proving the feasibility of in-ear sensing for sleep monitoring in the community.