Education has always been a hot topic among intellectuals and reformers. It has seen quite a change in the last decade or so, but not significant enough to get noticed. The new era of learning is still focused on keeping students in the classroom in the hopes that they will bring a better future to themselves and to society as a whole. The current education system has always been focused on a batch study where individual growth is never focused on. With the expansion of the internet, things have changed drastically, as now, anyone can do self-study using YouTube, Udacity, or TED.
A standard introduction to online learning might place Online Gradient Descent at its center and then proceed to develop generalizations and extensions like Online Mirror Descent and second-order methods. Here we explore the alternative approach of putting exponential weights (EW) first. We show that many standard methods and their regret bounds then follow as a special case by plugging in suitable surrogate losses and playing the EW posterior mean. For instance, we easily recover Online Gradient Descent by using EW with a Gaussian prior on linearized losses, and, more generally, all instances of Online Mirror Descent based on regular Bregman divergences also correspond to EW with a prior that depends on the mirror map. Furthermore, appropriate quadratic surrogate losses naturally give rise to Online Gradient Descent for strongly convex losses and to Online Newton Step. We further interpret several recent adaptive methods (iProd, Squint, and a variation of Coin Betting for experts) as a series of closely related reductions to exp-concave surrogate losses that are then handled by Exponential Weights. Finally, a benefit of our EW interpretation is that it opens up the possibility of sampling from the EW posterior distribution instead of playing the mean. As already observed by Bubeck and Eldan, this recovers the best-known rate in Online Bandit Linear Optimization.
Despite the recent resurgence of interest in learning methods for planning, most such efforts are still focused exclusively on classical planning problems. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of learning approaches for improving over-subscription planning, a problem that has received significant recent interest. Viewing over-subscription planning as a domain-independent optimization problem, we adapt the STAGE (Boyan and Moore 2000) approach to learn and improve the plan search. The key challenge in our study is how to automate the feature generation process. In our case, we developed and experimented with a relational feature set, based on Taxonomic syntax as well as a propositional feature set, based on ground-facts. The feature generation process and training data generation process are all automatic, making it a completely domain-independent optimization process that takes advantage of online learning. In empirical studies, our proposed approach improved upon the baseline planner for over-subscription planning on many of the benchmark problems.
There is no shortage of articles attempting to lay out a step-by-step process of how to become a data scientist. Are you a recent graduate? Do this… Are you changing careers? Do that… And make sure you're focusing on the top skills: coding, statistics, machine learning, storytelling, databases, big data… Need resources? Check out Andrew Ng's Coursera ML course, …". Although these are important things to consider once you have made up your mind to pursue a career in data science, I hope to answer the question that should come before all of this. It's the question that should be on every aspiring data scientist's mind: "should I become a data scientist?" This question addresses the why before you try to answer the how. What is it about the field that draws you in and will keep you in it and excited for years to come? In order to answer this question, it's important to understand how we got here and where we are headed. Because by having a full picture of the data science landscape, you can determine whether data science makes sense for you. Before the convergence of computer science, data technology, visualization, mathematics, and statistics into what we call data science today, these fields existed in siloes -- independently laying the groundwork for the tools and products we are now able to develop, things like: Oculus, Google Home, Amazon Alexa, self-driving cars, recommendation engines, etc. The foundational ideas have been around for decades... early scientists dating back to the pre-1800s, coming from wide range of backgrounds, worked on developing our first computers, calculus, probability theory, and algorithms like: CNNs, reinforcement learning, least squares regression. With the explosion in data and computational power, we are able to resurrect these decade old ideas and apply them to real-world problems. In 2009 and 2012, articles were published by McKinsey and the Harvard Business Review, hyping up the role of the data scientist, showing how they were revolutionizing the way businesses are operating and how they would be critical to future business success. They not only saw the advantage of a data-driven approach, but also the importance of utilizing predictive analytics into the future in order to remain competitive and relevant. Around the same time in 2011, Andrew Ng came out with a free online course on machine learning, and the curse of AI FOMO (fear of missing out) kicked in. Companies began the search for highly skilled individuals to help them collect, store, visualize and make sense of all their data. "You want the title and the high pay?