It seems like AI, data science, machine learning and bots are some of the most discussed topics in tech today. My preferred way to do this is always through listening to podcasts. Here are the ones I've found the most interesting: They alternate between great interviews with academics & practitioners and short 10–15 minute episodes where the hosts give a short primer on topics like calculating feature importance, k-means clustering, natural language processing and decision trees, often using analogies related to their pet parrot, Yoshi. This is the only place where you'll learn about k-means clustering via placement of parrot droppings. Hosted by Katie Malone and Ben Jaffe, this weekly podcast covers diverse topics in data science and machine learning: talking about specific concepts like model theft and the cold start problem and how they apply to real-world problems and datasets.

Recent advances in Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning provide us with the tools to build predictive models that can be used to unveil patterns driving judicial decisions. This can be useful, for both lawyers and judges, as an assisting tool to rapidly identify cases and extract patterns which lead to certain decisions. This paper presents the first systematic study on predicting the outcome of cases tried by the European Court of Human Rights based solely on textual content. We formulate a binary classification task where the input of our classifiers is the textual content extracted from a case and the target output is the actual judgment as to whether there has been a violation of an article of the convention of human rights. Textual information is represented using contiguous word sequences, i.e.

The comparison is performed on a data set where linear regression works well: salary offered to a candidate, based on programming language requirements in the job ad: Python, R or SQL. This is a follow-up to the article highest paying programming skills. The increased accuracy of linear regression estimates is negligible, and well below the noise level present in the data set. The Jackknife method has the advantage to be more stable, easy to code, easy to understand (no need to know matrix algebra), and easy to interpret (meaningful coefficients). Jackknife is not the first regression approximation developed by the author: check my book pages 172-176 for other examples.

Kaggle released a series with tutorials in their blog. I recommend to anyone who is starting or want to learn more about the tool.

Functional MRI (fMRI) and diffusion MRI (dMRI) are non-invasive imaging modalities that allow in-vivo analysis of a patient's brain network (known as a connectome). Use of these technologies has enabled faster and better diagnoses and treatments of neurological disorders and a deeper understanding of the human brain. Recently, researchers have been exploring the application of machine learning models to connectome data in order to predict clinical outcomes and analyze the importance of subnetworks in the brain. Connectome data has unique properties, which present both special challenges and opportunities when used for machine learning. The purpose of this work is to review the literature on the topic of applying machine learning models to MRI-based connectome data. This field is growing rapidly and now encompasses a large body of research. To summarize the research done to date, we provide a comparative, structured summary of 77 relevant works, tabulated according to different criteria, that represent the majority of the literature on this topic. (We also published a living version of this table online at http://connectomelearning.cs.sfu.ca that the community can continue to contribute to.) After giving an overview of how connectomes are constructed from dMRI and fMRI data, we discuss the variety of machine learning tasks that have been explored with connectome data. We then compare the advantages and drawbacks of different machine learning approaches that have been employed, discussing different feature selection and feature extraction schemes, as well as the learning models and regularization penalties themselves. Throughout this discussion, we focus particularly on how the methods are adapted to the unique nature of graphical connectome data. Finally, we conclude by summarizing the current state of the art and by outlining what we believe are strategic directions for future research.

Traditional classification algorithms assume that training and test data come from similar distributions. This assumption is violated in adversarial settings, where malicious actors modify instances to evade detection. A number of custom methods have been developed for both adversarial evasion attacks and robust learning. We propose the first systematic and general-purpose retraining framework which can: a) boost robustness of an \emph{arbitrary} learning algorithm, in the face of b) a broader class of adversarial models than any prior methods. We show that, under natural conditions, the retraining framework minimizes an upper bound on optimal adversarial risk, and show how to extend this result to account for approximations of evasion attacks. Extensive experimental evaluation demonstrates that our retraining methods are nearly indistinguishable from state-of-the-art algorithms for optimizing adversarial risk, but are more general and far more scalable. The experiments also confirm that without retraining, our adversarial framework dramatically reduces the effectiveness of learning. In contrast, retraining significantly boosts robustness to evasion attacks without significantly compromising overall accuracy.

Background: High-throughput proteomics techniques, such as mass spectrometry (MS)-based approaches, produce very high-dimensional data-sets. In a clinical setting one is often interested in how mass spectra differ between patients of different classes, for example spectra from healthy patients vs. spectra from patients having a particular disease. Machine learning algorithms are needed to (a) identify these discriminating features and (b) classify unknown spectra based on this feature set. Since the acquired data is usually noisy, the algorithms should be robust against noise and outliers, while the identified feature set should be as small as possible. Results: We present a new algorithm, Sparse Proteomics Analysis (SPA), based on the theory of compressed sensing that allows us to identify a minimal discriminating set of features from mass spectrometry data-sets. We show (1) how our method performs on artificial and real-world data-sets, (2) that its performance is competitive with standard (and widely used) algorithms for analyzing proteomics data, and (3) that it is robust against random and systematic noise. We further demonstrate the applicability of our algorithm to two previously published clinical data-sets.

David Cheng is an investment manager at DCM Ventures where he focuses on opportunities in the consumer internet, mobile applications and SaaS space. In living organisms, evolution is a multi-generational process where mutations in genes are dropped and added. Well-adapted organisms survive and those less fortunate go extinct. Resilience is great, but if you don't grow gills in time for the flood, then tough luck. Engineering, on the other hand, is a deliberate process with reliable steps designed to reach a stated objective.

Some foundations of statistical science have been questioned recently, especially the use and abuse of p-values. See also this article published in FiveThirtyEight.com. Statistical tests of hypotheses rely on p-values and other mysterious parameters and concepts that only the initiated can understand: power, type I error, type II error, or UMP tests, just to name a few. Pretty much all of us have had to learn this old stuff (pre-dating the existence of computers) in some college classes. Sometimes results from a statistical test will be published in a mainstream journal - for instance about whether or not global warming is accelerating - using the same jargon that few understand, and accompanied by misinterpretations and flaws in the use of the test itself. Especially when tests are repeated over and over (or data adulterated or wrongly collected to start with) until they deliver the answer that we want.

Many articles have been written about the top machine learning algorithms: click here and here for instance. Most of them seem to define top as oldest, and thus most used, ignoring modern, efficient algorithms fit for big data, such as indexation, attribution modeling, collaborative filtering, or recommendation engines used by companies such as Amazon, Google, or Facebook. I received this morning and advertisement for a (self-published) book called Master Machine Learning Algorithms, and I could not resist to post the author's list of top 10 machine learning algorithms:: Some of these techniques such as Naive Bayes (variables are almost never uncorrelated), Linear Discriminant Analysis (clusters are almost never separated by hyperplanes), or Linear Regression (numerous model assumptions - including linearity - are almost always violated in real data) have been so abused that I would hesitate teaching them. This is not a criticism of the book; most textbooks mention pretty much the same algorithms, and in this case, even skipping all graph-related algorithms. Even k Nearest Neighbors have modern, fast implementations not covered in traditional books - we are indeed working on this topic and expect to have an article published shortly about it.