This paper is an attempt to bridge the conceptual gaps between researchers working on the two widely used approaches based on positive definite kernels: Bayesian learning or inference using Gaussian processes on the one side, and frequentist kernel methods based on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces on the other. It is widely known in machine learning that these two formalisms are closely related; for instance, the estimator of kernel ridge regression is identical to the posterior mean of Gaussian process regression. However, they have been studied and developed almost independently by two essentially separate communities, and this makes it difficult to seamlessly transfer results between them. Our aim is to overcome this potential difficulty. To this end, we review several old and new results and concepts from either side, and juxtapose algorithmic quantities from each framework to highlight close similarities. We also provide discussions on subtle philosophical and theoretical differences between the two approaches.

Within the realm of service robotics, researchers have placed a great amount of effort into learning motions and manipulations for task execution by robots. The task of robot learning is very broad, as it involves many tasks such as object detection, action recognition, motion planning, localization, knowledge representation and retrieval, and the intertwining of computer vision and machine learning techniques. In this paper, we focus on how knowledge can be gathered, represented, and reproduced to solve problems as done by researchers in the past decades. We discuss the problems which have existed in robot learning and the solutions, technologies or developments (if any) which have contributed to solving them. Specifically, we look at three broad categories involved in task representation and retrieval for robotics: 1) activity recognition from demonstrations, 2) scene understanding and interpretation, and 3) task representation in robotics - datasets and networks. Within each section, we discuss major breakthroughs and how their methods address present issues in robot learning and manipulation.

Smart-home is an application domain which brings together home automation and ambient intelligence to ease life of dwellers and to provide support to people in loss of autonomy. The development of smarthomes is not only a cultural and technological evolution but is also recognized as one way to address the challenges created by an aging population in developed countries [42]. If home automation is concerned with sensing (sensors, actuators, middle-ware) and low-level automation (heating control, lighting control), Ambient Intelligence should provide perception and reasoning capabilities into the smart-home ecosystem. However, although the development of smart-homes is supported by a large amount of research and industrial projects, it has not reached a large public since many challenges are still to be addressed. One of the main challenges is due to the complexity of setting up the smart-home system in case of new situations (devices, house, dwellers, after an accident, etc.).

We introduce a kernel approximation strategy that enables computation of the Gaussian process log marginal likelihood and all hyperparameter derivatives in $\mathcal{O}(p)$ time. Our GRIEF kernel consists of $p$ eigenfunctions found using a Nystr\"om approximation from a dense Cartesian product grid of inducing points. By exploiting algebraic properties of Kronecker and Khatri-Rao tensor products, computational complexity of the training procedure can be practically independent of the number of inducing points. This allows us to use arbitrarily many inducing points to achieve a globally accurate kernel approximation, even in high-dimensional problems. The fast likelihood evaluation enables type-I or II Bayesian inference on large-scale datasets. We benchmark our algorithms on real-world problems with up to two-million training points and $10^{33}$ inducing points.

Dropout, a stochastic regularisation technique for training of neural networks, has recently been reinterpreted as a specific type of approximate inference algorithm for Bayesian neural networks. The main contribution of the reinterpretation is in providing a theoretical framework useful for analysing and extending the algorithm. We show that the proposed framework suffers from several issues; from undefined or pathological behaviour of the true posterior related to use of improper priors, to an ill-defined variational objective due to singularity of the approximating distribution relative to the true posterior. Our analysis of the improper log uniform prior used in variational Gaussian dropout suggests the pathologies are generally irredeemable, and that the algorithm still works only because the variational formulation annuls some of the pathologies. To address the singularity issue, we proffer Quasi-KL (QKL) divergence, a new approximate inference objective for approximation of high-dimensional distributions. We show that motivations for variational Bernoulli dropout based on discretisation and noise have QKL as a limit. Properties of QKL are studied both theoretically and on a simple practical example which shows that the QKL-optimal approximation of a full rank Gaussian with a degenerate one naturally leads to the Principal Component Analysis solution.

We revisit logistic regression and its nonlinear extensions, including multilayer feedforward neural networks, by showing that these classifiers can be viewed as converting input or higher-level features into Dempster-Shafer mass functions and aggregating them by Dempster's rule of combination. The probabilistic outputs of these classifiers are the normalized plausibilities corresponding to the underlying combined mass function. This mass function is more informative than the output probability distribution. In particular, it makes it possible to distinguish between lack of evidence (when none of the features provides discriminant information) from conflicting evidence (when different features support different classes). This expressivity of mass functions allows us to gain insight into the role played by each input feature in logistic regression, and to interpret hidden unit outputs in multilayer neural networks. It also makes it possible to use alternative decision rules, such as interval dominance, which select a set of classes when the available evidence does not unambiguously point to a single class, thus trading reduced error rate for higher imprecision.

We present a representation learning algorithm that learns a low-dimensional latent dynamical system from high-dimensional sequential raw data, e.g., video. The framework builds upon recent advances in amortized inference methods that use both an inference network and a refinement procedure to output samples from a variational distribution given an observation sequence, and takes advantage of the duality between control and inference to approximately solve the intractable inference problem using the path integral control approach. The learned dynamical model can be used to predict and plan the future states; we also present the efficient planning method that exploits the learned low-dimensional latent dynamics. Numerical experiments show that the proposed path-integral control based variational inference method leads to tighter lower bounds in statistical model learning of sequential data. The supplementary video can be found at https://youtu.be/4jDcbuAJ7mA.

The article was written by Amber Zhou, a Financial Analyst at I Know First. Deep learning has become a buzzward in recent years. In fact, it has once gained much attention and excitements under the name neural networks early back in 1980's. However due to the lack of sufficient compute power and training examples, it gradually experienced a depression in the following decade. As we are entering the Era of Big Data in light of the explosion of computer power, deep learning has recently seen a revival.

The densities are just for plotting. So when do we use bootstrap rather than a simple test of proportions? Well, bootstraps are very nice and work in a wide variety of settings and result in easy-to-compute summaries of the distributions. It's a good tool to have in your toolbox and it's cool to show it in a simple example.

In this article, I will provide a basic introduction to Bayesian learning and explore topics such as frequentist statistics, the drawbacks of the frequentist method, Bayes's theorem (introduced with an example), and the differences between the frequentist and Bayesian methods using the coin flip experiment as the example. To begin, let's try to answer this question: what is the frequentist method? When we flip a coin, there are two possible outcomes -- heads or tails. Of course, there is a third rare possibility where the coin balances on its edge without falling onto either side, which we assume is not a possible outcome of the coin flip for our discussion. We conduct a series of coin flips and record our observations i.e. the number of the heads (or tails) observed for a certain number of coin flips. In this experiment, we are trying to determine the fairness of the coin, using the number of heads (or tails) that we observe.