With the rapid development of digital information, the data volume generated by humans and machines is growing exponentially. Along with this trend, machine learning algorithms have been formed and evolved continuously to discover new information and knowledge from different data sources. Learning algorithms using hyperboxes as fundamental representational and building blocks are a branch of machine learning methods. These algorithms have enormous potential for high scalability and online adaptation of predictors built using hyperbox data representations to the dynamically changing environments and streaming data. This paper aims to give a comprehensive survey of literature on hyperbox-based machine learning models. In general, according to the architecture and characteristic features of the resulting models, the existing hyperbox-based learning algorithms may be grouped into three major categories: fuzzy min-max neural networks, hyperbox-based hybrid models, and other algorithms based on hyperbox representation. Within each of these groups, this paper shows a brief description of the structure of models, associated learning algorithms, and an analysis of their advantages and drawbacks. Main applications of these hyperbox-based models to the real-world problems are also described in this paper. Finally, we discuss some open problems and identify potential future research directions in this field.

In this paper we study the adaptive learnability of decision trees of depth at most $d$ from membership queries. This has many applications in automated scientific discovery such as drugs development and software update problem. Feldman solves the problem in a randomized polynomial time algorithm that asks $\tilde O(2^{2d})\log n$ queries and Kushilevitz-Mansour in a deterministic polynomial time algorithm that asks $ 2^{18d+o(d)}\log n$ queries. We improve the query complexity of both algorithms. We give a randomized polynomial time algorithm that asks $\tilde O(2^{2d}) + 2^{d}\log n$ queries and a deterministic polynomial time algorithm that asks $2^{5.83d}+2^{2d+o(d)}\log n$ queries.

You've come a long way from writing your first line of Python or R code. You know your way around Scikit-Learn like the back of your hand. You spend more time on Kaggle than Facebook now. You're no stranger to building awesome random forests and other tree based ensemble models that get the job done. You want to dig deeper and understand some of the intricacies and concepts behind popular machine learning models.

Decision Trees are a class of very powerful Machine Learning model cable of achieving high accuracy in many tasks while being highly interpretable. What makes decision trees special in the realm of ML models is really their clarity of information representation. The "knowledge" learned by a decision tree through training is directly formulated into a hierarchical structure. This structure holds and displays the knowledge in such a way that it can easily be understood, even by non-experts. You've probably used a decision tree before to make a decision in your own life. Take for example the decision about what activity you should do this weekend.

Decision Trees are a class of very powerful Machine Learning model cable of achieving high accuracy in many tasks while being highly interpretable. What makes decision trees special in the realm of ML models is really their clarity of information representation. The "knowledge" learned by a decision tree through training is directly formulated into a hierarchical structure. This structure holds and displays the knowledge in such a way that it can easily be understood, even by non-experts. You've probably used a decision tree before to make a decision in your own life.

Due to their structure, decision trees are easy to understand, interpret and visualize. In doing so, a variable check or feature selection is implicitly performed. Both numerical and non-numerical data can be processed simultaneously relatively little effort on the part of the user for the data preparation requires. On the other hand, too complex trees can be created that do not generalize the data well. Small variations in the data can also make the trees unstable, creating a tree that does not solve the problem.

The high-dimensionality and volume of large scale multistream data has inhibited significant research progress in developing an integrated monitoring and diagnostics (M&D) approach. This data, also categorized as big data, is becoming common in manufacturing plants. In this paper, we propose an integrated M\&D approach for large scale streaming data. We developed a novel monitoring method named Adaptive Principal Component monitoring (APC) which adaptively chooses PCs that are most likely to vary due to the change for early detection. Importantly, we integrate a novel diagnostic approach, Principal Component Signal Recovery (PCSR), to enable a streamlined SPC. This diagnostics approach draws inspiration from Compressed Sensing and uses Adaptive Lasso for identifying the sparse change in the process. We theoretically motivate our approaches and do a performance evaluation of our integrated M&D method through simulations and case studies.

Decision Tree (CART) - Machine Learning Fun and Easy https://www.udemy.com/machine-learnin... Decision tree is a type of supervised learning algorithm (having a pre-defined target variable) that is mostly used in classification problems. A tree has many analogies in real life, and turns out that it has influenced a wide area of machine learning, covering both classification and regression (CART). So a decision tree is a flow-chart-like structure, where each internal node denotes a test on an attribute, each branch represents the outcome of a test, and each leaf (or terminal) node holds a class label. The topmost node in a tree is the root node. To learn more on Augmented Reality, IoT, Machine Learning FPGAs, Arduinos, PCB Design and Image Processing then Check out http://www.arduinostartups.com/

Discovering community structure in complex networks is a mature field since a tremendous number of community detection methods have been introduced in the literature. Nevertheless, it is still very challenging for practioners to determine which method would be suitable to get insights into the structural information of the networks they study. Many recent efforts have been devoted to investigating various quality scores of the community structure, but the problem of distinguishing between different types of communities is still open. In this paper, we propose a comparative, extensive and empirical study to investigate what types of communities many state-of-the-art and well-known community detection methods are producing. Specifically, we provide comprehensive analyses on computation time, community size distribution, a comparative evaluation of methods according to their optimisation schemes as well as a comparison of their partioning strategy through validation metrics. We process our analyses on a very large corpus of hundreds of networks from five different network categories and propose ways to classify community detection methods, helping a potential user to navigate the complex landscape of community detection.

We consider a sequence of successively more restrictive definitions of abstraction for causal models, starting with a notion introduced by Rubenstein et al. (2017) called exact transformation that applies to probabilistic causal models, moving to a notion of uniform transformation that applies to deterministic causal models and does not allow differences to be hidden by the "right" choice of distribution, and then to abstraction, where the interventions of interest are determined by the map from low-level states to high-level states, and strong abstraction, which takes more seriously all potential interventions in a model, not just the allowed interventions. We show that procedures for combining micro-variables into macro-variables are instances of our notion of strong abstraction, as are all the examples considered by Rubenstein et al.