The substantial increase in AI model training has considerable environmental implications, mandating more energy-efficient and sustainable AI practices. On the one hand, data-centric approaches show great potential towards training energy-efficient AI models. On the other hand, instance selection methods demonstrate the capability of training AI models with minimised training sets and negligible performance degradation. Despite the growing interest in both topics, the impact of data-centric training set selection on energy efficiency remains to date unexplored. This paper presents an evolutionary-based sampling framework aimed at (i) identifying elite training samples tailored for datasets and model pairs, (ii) comparing model performance and energy efficiency gains against typical model training practice, and (iii) investigating the feasibility of this framework for fostering sustainable model training practices. To evaluate the proposed framework, we conducted an empirical experiment including 8 commonly used AI classification models and 25 publicly available datasets. The results showcase that by considering 10% elite training samples, the models' performance can show a 50% improvement and remarkable energy savings of 98% compared to the common training practice.

Now, we're going to see how we can use our training data to train our Naive Bayes' model. What does it even mean to train a Naive Bayes' model? In our task, we have two classes. So, n 2. Let's work our way through this formula and see how these different terms are calculated. First, let's look at the P(c) term.

Classifying our data and predicting the outcomes from our historical data are huge tasks at the moment. For performing these tasks, we have a robust family of Supervised Learning Algorithms called Naive Bayes' Classifiers. Naive Bayes' Classifiers are wholly based on the Bayes' Theorem which gives us the probability of an event, given that another event has already occurred. This is symbolically expressed as P(A B), i.e. Probability of event A will occur given that event B has already occurred.

Over the past two decades, Machine Learning (ML) techniques have been increasingly utilized for the purpose of predicting outcomes in sport. In this paper, we provide a review of studies that have used ML for predicting results in team sport, covering studies from 1996 to 2019. We sought to answer five key research questions while extensively surveying papers in this field. This paper offers insights into which ML algorithms have tended to be used in this field, as well as those that are beginning to emerge with successful outcomes. Our research highlights defining characteristics of successful studies and identifies robust strategies for evaluating accuracy results in this application domain. Our study considers accuracies that have been achieved across different sports and explores the notion that outcomes of some team sports could be inherently more difficult to predict than others. Finally, our study uncovers common themes of future research directions across all surveyed papers, looking for gaps and opportunities, while proposing recommendations for future researchers in this domain.

Learn how to to scale up a machine learning algorithm. The cloud and machine learning: two phrases with a lot of hype that few people understand. We're intimately familiar with both here at Leverege, so hopefully this article will shed some light on the two topics. Before we share what we've learned using Google Cloud ML Engine, we need to do a quick refresher on how machine learning is done in production. So how does Google Cloud ML fit into all of this?

Some of the most common examples of machine learning are Netflix's algorithms to make movie suggestions based on movies you have watched in the past or Amazon's algorithms that recommend books based on books you have bought before. The textbook that we used is one of the AI classics: Peter Norvig's Artificial Intelligence -- A Modern Approach, in which we covered major topics including intelligent agents, problem-solving by searching, adversarial search, probability theory, multi-agent systems, social AI, philosophy/ethics/future of AI. Machine learning algorithms can be divided into 3 broad categories -- supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning.Supervised learning is useful in cases where a property (label) is available for a certain dataset (training set), but is missing and needs to be predicted for other instances. You can think of linear regression as the task of fitting a straight line through a set of points.

Naive Bayes' is a supervised machine learning classification algorithm based off of Bayes' Theorem. If you don't remember Bayes' Theorem, here it is: Seriously though, if you need a refresher, I have a lesson on it here: Bayes' Theorem The naive part comes from the idea that the probability of each column is computed alone. They are "naive" to what the other columns contain. Let's look at the data. We have 3 columns – Score, ExtraCir, Accepted.

Naive Bayes (NB) is well-known to be a simple but effective classifier, especially when combined with feature selection. Unfortunately, feature selection methods are often greedy and thus cannot guarantee an optimal feature set is selected. An alternative to feature selection is to use Bayesian model averaging (BMA), which computes a weighted average over multiple predictors; when the different predictor models correspond to different feature sets, BMA has the advantage over feature selection that its predictions tend to have lower variance on average in comparison to any single model. In this paper, we show for the first time that it is possible to exactly evaluate BMA over the exponentially-sized powerset of NB feature models in linear-time in the number of features; this yields an algorithm about as expensive to train as a single NB model with all features, but yet provably converges to the globally optimal feature subset in the asymptotic limit of data. We evaluate this novel BMA-NB classifier on a range of datasets showing that it never underperforms NB (as expected) and sometimes offers performance competitive (or superior) to classifiers such as SVMs and logistic regression while taking a fraction of the time to train.

Text-based geolocation classifiers often operate with a grid-based view of the world. Predicting document location of origin based on text content on a geodesic grid is computationally attractive since many standard methods for supervised document classification carry over unchanged to geolocation in the form of predicting a most probable grid cell for a document. However, the grid-based approach suffers from sparse data problems if one wants to improve classification accuracy by moving to smaller cell sizes. In this paper we investigate an enhancement of common methods for determining the geographic point of origin of a text document by kernel density estimation. For geolocation of tweets we obtain a improvements upon non-kernel methods on datasets of U.S. and global Twitter content.

Dropout training, originally designed for deep neural networks, has been successful on high-dimensional single-layer natural language tasks. This paper proposes a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon: we show that, under a generative Poisson topic model with long documents, dropout training improves the exponent in the generalization bound for empirical risk minimization. Dropout achieves this gain much like a marathon runner who practices at altitude: once a classifier learns to perform reasonably well on training examples that have been artificially corrupted by dropout, it will do very well on the uncorrupted test set. We also show that, under similar conditions, dropout preserves the Bayes decision boundary and should therefore induce minimal bias in high dimensions.