minimization problem
EB-RANSAC: Random Sample Consensus based on Energy-Based Model
Yasuda, Muneki, Watanabe, Nao, Sekimoto, Kaiji
Random sample consensus (RANSAC), which is based on a repetitive sampling from a given dataset, is one of the most popular robust estimation methods. In this study, an energy-based model (EBM) for robust estimation that has a similar scheme to RANSAC, energy-based RANSAC (EB-RANSAC), is proposed. EB-RANSAC is applicable to a wide range of estimation problems similar to RANSAC. However, unlike RANSAC, EB-RANSAC does not require a troublesome sampling procedure and has only one hyperparameter. The effectiveness of EB-RANSAC is numerically demonstrated in two applications: a linear regression and maximum likelihood estimation.
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- Europe > Switzerland > Basel-City > Basel (0.04)
- Asia > Japan (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.54)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.54)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning > Regression (0.48)
Fast Bellman Updates for Wasserstein Distributionally Robust MDPs
Markov decision processes (MDPs) often suffer from the sensitivity issue under model ambiguity. In recent years, robust MDPs have emerged as an effective framework to overcome this challenge. Distributionally robust MDPs extend the robust MDP framework by incorporating distributional information of the uncertain model parameters to alleviate the conservative nature of robust MDPs.
- Asia > China > Hong Kong (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts (0.04)
- North America > United States > North Carolina > Durham County > Durham (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Virginia (0.04)
- North America > United States > Michigan (0.04)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (0.46)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.46)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- Asia > China (0.04)
A Appendix: Proofs and Algorithms A.1 Proofs of results in Section 4 Proof of Proposition 4.1. Plug B
(Bertsekas, 1999). Algorithm 1. Furthermore, we call ˆ f (), X We can show that | f () ˆ f () |, 8 2 [, ] . Besides, computing the upper bound claimed in Proposition 4.2 requires finding The second equality is from the fact that the objective function is affine w.r.t. Finally, we verify the rest two components. Finally, we verify the rest two components. This finishes the proof of our claim.
- North America > United States > Virginia (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- North America > United States > Virginia (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- (3 more...)