In computer science, an instance or token (from metalogic and metamathematics) is a specific occurrence of a software element that is based on a type definition. When created, an occurrence is said to have been instantiated, and both the creation process and the result of creation are called instantiation. == Examples == Chat AI instance In chat-based AI systems, an assistant can be invoked across many independent conversation sessions (often called a thread), each with its own message history. A specific execution of the assistant over that session may be represented as a run (an execution on a thread). Class instance In object-oriented programming, an object created from a class type. Each instance of a class shares the class-defined structure and behavior but has its own identity and state. Procedural instance In some contexts (including Simula), each procedure call can be viewed as an instance of that procedure—an activation with its own parameters and local variables. Computer instance In cloud computing and virtualization, an instance commonly refers to a provisioned virtual machine or virtual server with an allocated combination of compute, memory, network, and storage resources. Polygonal model In computer graphics, a model may be instanced so it can be drawn multiple times with different transforms and parameters, improving performance by reusing shared geometry data. Program instance In a POSIX-oriented operating system, a running process is an instance of a program. It can be instantiated via system calls such as fork() and exec(). Each executing process is an instance of a program it has been instantiated from.
Physical access
Physical access is a term in computer security that refers to the ability of people to physically gain access to a computer system. According to Gregory White, "Given physical access to an office, the knowledgeable attacker will quickly be able to find the information needed to gain access to the organization's computer systems and network." == Attacks and countermeasures == === Attacks === Physical access opens up a variety of avenues for hacking. Michael Meyers notes that "the best network software security measures can be rendered useless if you fail to physically protect your systems," since an intruder could simply walk off with a server and crack the password at his leisure. Physical access also allows hardware keyloggers to be installed. An intruder may be able to boot from a CD or other external media and then read unencrypted data on the hard drive. They may also exploit a lack of access control in the boot loader; for instance, pressing F8 while certain versions of Microsoft Windows are booting, specifying 'init=/bin/sh' as a boot parameter to Linux (usually done by editing the command line in GRUB), etc. One could also use a rogue device to access a poorly secured wireless network; if the signal were sufficiently strong, one might not even need to breach the perimeter. === Countermeasures === IT security standards in the United States typically call for physical access to be limited by locked server rooms, sign-in sheets, etc. Physical access systems and IT security systems have historically been administered by separate departments of organizations, but are increasingly being seen as having interdependent functions needing a single, converged security policy. An IT department could, for instance, check security log entries for suspicious logons occurring after business hours, and then use keycard swipe records from a building access control system to narrow down the list of suspects to those who were in the building at that time. Surveillance cameras might also be used to deter or detect unauthorized access.
Aleph (ILP)
Aleph (A Learning Engine for Proposing Hypotheses) is an inductive logic programming system introduced by Ashwin Srinivasan in 2001. As of 2022 it is still one of the most widely used inductive logic programming systems. It is based on the earlier system Progol. == Learning task == The input to Aleph is background knowledge, specified as a logic program, a language bias in the form of mode declarations, as well as positive and negative examples specified as ground facts. As output it returns a logic program which, together with the background knowledge, entails all of the positive examples and none of the negative examples. == Basic algorithm == Starting with an empty hypothesis, Aleph proceeds as follows: It chooses a positive example to generalise; if none are left, it aborts and outputs the current hypothesis. Then it constructs the bottom clause, that is, the most specific clause that is allowed by the mode declarations and covers the example. It then searches for a generalisation of the bottom clause that scores better on the chosen metric. It then adds the new clause to the hypothesis program and removes all examples that are covered by the new clause. == Search algorithm == Aleph searches for clauses in a top-down manner, using the bottom clause constructed in the preceding step to bound the search from below. It searches the refinement graph in a breadth-first manner, with tunable parameters to bound the maximal clause size and proof depth. It scores each clause using one of 13 different evaluation metrics, as chosen in advance by the user.
Learning classifier system
Learning classifier systems, or LCS, are a paradigm of rule-based machine learning methods that combine a discovery component (e.g. typically a genetic algorithm in evolutionary computation) with a learning component (performing either supervised learning, reinforcement learning, or unsupervised learning). Learning classifier systems seek to identify a set of context-dependent rules that collectively store and apply knowledge in a piecewise manner in order to make predictions (e.g. behavior modeling, classification, data mining, regression, function approximation, or game strategy). This approach allows complex solution spaces to be broken up into smaller, simpler parts for the reinforcement learning that is inside artificial intelligence research. The founding concepts behind learning classifier systems came from attempts to model complex adaptive systems, using rule-based agents to form an artificial cognitive system (i.e. artificial intelligence). == Methodology == The architecture and components of a given learning classifier system can be quite variable. It is useful to think of an LCS as a machine consisting of several interacting components. Components may be added or removed, or existing components modified/exchanged to suit the demands of a given problem domain (like algorithmic building blocks) or to make the algorithm flexible enough to function in many different problem domains. As a result, the LCS paradigm can be flexibly applied to many problem domains that call for machine learning. The major divisions among LCS implementations are as follows: (1) Michigan-style architecture vs. Pittsburgh-style architecture, (2) reinforcement learning vs. supervised learning, (3) incremental learning vs. batch learning, (4) online learning vs. offline learning, (5) strength-based fitness vs. accuracy-based fitness, and (6) complete action mapping vs best action mapping. These divisions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, XCS, the best known and best studied LCS algorithm, is Michigan-style, was designed for reinforcement learning but can also perform supervised learning, applies incremental learning that can be either online or offline, applies accuracy-based fitness, and seeks to generate a complete action mapping. === Elements of a generic LCS algorithm === Keeping in mind that LCS is a paradigm for genetic-based machine learning rather than a specific method, the following outlines key elements of a generic, modern (i.e. post-XCS) LCS algorithm. For simplicity let us focus on Michigan-style architecture with supervised learning. See the illustrations on the right laying out the sequential steps involved in this type of generic LCS. ==== Environment ==== The environment is the source of data upon which an LCS learns. It can be an offline, finite training dataset (characteristic of a data mining, classification, or regression problem), or an online sequential stream of live training instances. Each training instance is assumed to include some number of features (also referred to as attributes, or independent variables), and a single endpoint of interest (also referred to as the class, action, phenotype, prediction, or dependent variable). Part of LCS learning can involve feature selection, therefore not all of the features in the training data need to be informative. The set of feature values of an instance is commonly referred to as the state. For simplicity let's assume an example problem domain with Boolean/binary features and a Boolean/binary class. For Michigan-style systems, one instance from the environment is trained on each learning cycle (i.e. incremental learning). Pittsburgh-style systems perform batch learning, where rule sets are evaluated in each iteration over much or all of the training data. ==== Rule/classifier/population ==== A rule is a context dependent relationship between state values and some prediction. Rules typically take the form of an {IF:THEN} expression, (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'action'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign'}). A critical concept in LCS and rule-based machine learning alike, is that an individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Think of a rule as a "local-model" of the solution space. Rules can be represented in many different ways to handle different data types (e.g. binary, discrete-valued, ordinal, continuous-valued). Given binary data LCS traditionally applies a ternary rule representation (i.e. rules can include either a 0, 1, or '#' for each feature in the data). The 'don't care' symbol (i.e. '#') serves as a wild card within a rule's condition allowing rules, and the system as a whole to generalize relationships between features and the target endpoint to be predicted. Consider the following rule (#1###0 ~ 1) (i.e. condition ~ action). This rule can be interpreted as: IF the second feature = 1 AND the sixth feature = 0 THEN the class prediction = 1. We would say that the second and sixth features were specified in this rule, while the others were generalized. This rule, and the corresponding prediction are only applicable to an instance when the condition of the rule is satisfied by the instance. This is more commonly referred to as matching. In Michigan-style LCS, each rule has its own fitness, as well as a number of other rule-parameters associated with it that can describe the number of copies of that rule that exist (i.e. the numerosity), the age of the rule, its accuracy, or the accuracy of its reward predictions, and other descriptive or experiential statistics. A rule along with its parameters is often referred to as a classifier. In Michigan-style systems, classifiers are contained within a population [P] that has a user defined maximum number of classifiers. Unlike most stochastic search algorithms (e.g. evolutionary algorithms), LCS populations start out empty (i.e. there is no need to randomly initialize a rule population). Classifiers will instead be initially introduced to the population with a covering mechanism. In any LCS, the trained model is a set of rules/classifiers, rather than any single rule/classifier. In Michigan-style LCS, the entire trained (and optionally, compacted) classifier population forms the prediction model. ==== Matching ==== One of the most critical and often time-consuming elements of an LCS is the matching process. The first step in an LCS learning cycle takes a single training instance from the environment and passes it to [P] where matching takes place. In step two, every rule in [P] is now compared to the training instance to see which rules match (i.e. are contextually relevant to the current instance). In step three, any matching rules are moved to a match set [M]. A rule matches a training instance if all feature values specified in the rule condition are equivalent to the corresponding feature value in the training instance. For example, assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), these rules would match: (###0## ~ 0), (00###1 ~ 0), (#01001 ~ 1), but these rules would not (1##### ~ 0), (000##1 ~ 0), (#0#1#0 ~ 1). Notice that in matching, the endpoint/action specified by the rule is not taken into consideration. As a result, the match set may contain classifiers that propose conflicting actions. In the fourth step, since we are performing supervised learning, [M] is divided into a correct set [C] and an incorrect set [I]. A matching rule goes into the correct set if it proposes the correct action (based on the known action of the training instance), otherwise it goes into [I]. In reinforcement learning LCS, an action set [A] would be formed here instead, since the correct action is not known. ==== Covering ==== At this point in the learning cycle, if no classifiers made it into either [M] or [C] (as would be the case when the population starts off empty), the covering mechanism is applied (fifth step). Covering is a form of online smart population initialization. Covering randomly generates a rule that matches the current training instance (and in the case of supervised learning, that rule is also generated with the correct action. Assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), covering might generate any of the following rules: (#0#0## ~ 0), (001001 ~ 0), (#010## ~ 0). Covering not only ensures that each learning cycle there is at least one correct, matching rule in [C], but that any rule initialized into the population will match at least one training instance. This prevents LCS from exploring the search space of rules that do not match any training instances. ==== Parameter updates/credit assignment/learning ==== In the sixth step, the rule parameters of any rule in [M] are updated to reflect the new experience gained from the current training instance. Depending on the LCS algorithm, a number of updates can take place at this step. For supervised learning, we can simply update the accuracy/error of a
Consensus clustering
Consensus clustering is a method of aggregating (potentially conflicting) results from multiple clustering algorithms. Also called cluster ensembles or aggregation of clustering (or partitions), it refers to the situation in which a number of different (input) clusterings have been obtained for a particular dataset and it is desired to find a single (consensus) clustering which is a better fit in some sense than the existing clusterings. Consensus clustering is thus the problem of reconciling clustering information about the same data set coming from different sources or from different runs of the same algorithm. When cast as an optimization problem, consensus clustering is known as median partition, and has been shown to be NP-complete, even when the number of input clusterings is three. Consensus clustering for unsupervised learning is analogous to ensemble learning in supervised learning. == Issues with existing clustering techniques == Current clustering techniques do not address all the requirements adequately. Dealing with large number of dimensions and large number of data items can be problematic because of time complexity; Effectiveness of the method depends on the definition of "distance" (for distance-based clustering) If an obvious distance measure doesn't exist, we must "define" it, which is not always easy, especially in multidimensional spaces. The result of the clustering algorithm (that, in many cases, can be arbitrary itself) can be interpreted in different ways. == Justification for using consensus clustering == There are potential shortcomings for all existing clustering techniques. This may cause interpretation of results to become difficult, especially when there is no knowledge about the number of clusters. Clustering methods are also very sensitive to the initial clustering settings, which can cause non-significant data to be amplified in non-reiterative methods. An extremely important issue in cluster analysis is the validation of the clustering results, that is, how to gain confidence about the significance of the clusters provided by the clustering technique (cluster numbers and cluster assignments). Lacking an external objective criterion (the equivalent of a known class label in supervised analysis), this validation becomes somewhat elusive. Iterative descent clustering methods, such as the SOM and k-means clustering circumvent some of the shortcomings of hierarchical clustering by providing for univocally defined clusters and cluster boundaries. Consensus clustering provides a method that represents the consensus across multiple runs of a clustering algorithm, to determine the number of clusters in the data, and to assess the stability of the discovered clusters. The method can also be used to represent the consensus over multiple runs of a clustering algorithm with random restart (such as K-means, model-based Bayesian clustering, SOM, etc.), so as to account for its sensitivity to the initial conditions. It can provide data for a visualization tool to inspect cluster number, membership, and boundaries. However, they lack the intuitive and visual appeal of hierarchical clustering dendrograms, and the number of clusters must be chosen a priori. == The Monti consensus clustering algorithm == The Monti consensus clustering algorithm is one of the most popular consensus clustering algorithms and is used to determine the number of clusters, K {\displaystyle K} . Given a dataset of N {\displaystyle N} total number of points to cluster, this algorithm works by resampling and clustering the data, for each K {\displaystyle K} and a N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} consensus matrix is calculated, where each element represents the fraction of times two samples clustered together. A perfectly stable matrix would consist entirely of zeros and ones, representing all sample pairs always clustering together or not together over all resampling iterations. The relative stability of the consensus matrices can be used to infer the optimal K {\displaystyle K} . More specifically, given a set of points to cluster, D = { e 1 , e 2 , . . . e N } {\displaystyle D=\{e_{1},e_{2},...e_{N}\}} , let D 1 , D 2 , . . . , D H {\displaystyle D^{1},D^{2},...,D^{H}} be the list of H {\displaystyle H} perturbed (resampled) datasets of the original dataset D {\displaystyle D} , and let M h {\displaystyle M^{h}} denote the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} connectivity matrix resulting from applying a clustering algorithm to the dataset D h {\displaystyle D^{h}} . The entries of M h {\displaystyle M^{h}} are defined as follows: M h ( i , j ) = { 1 , if points i and j belong to the same cluster 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle M^{h}(i,j)={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if}}{\text{ points i and j belong to the same cluster}}\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Let I h {\displaystyle I^{h}} be the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} identicator matrix where the ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} -th entry is equal to 1 if points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} are in the same perturbed dataset D h {\displaystyle D^{h}} , and 0 otherwise. The indicator matrix is used to keep track of which samples were selected during each resampling iteration for the normalisation step. The consensus matrix C {\displaystyle C} is defined as the normalised sum of all connectivity matrices of all the perturbed datasets and a different one is calculated for every K {\displaystyle K} . C ( i , j ) = ( ∑ h = 1 H M h ( i , j ) ∑ h = 1 H I h ( i , j ) ) {\displaystyle C(i,j)=\left({\frac {\textstyle \sum _{h=1}^{H}M^{h}(i,j)\displaystyle }{\sum _{h=1}^{H}I^{h}(i,j)}}\right)} That is the entry ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} in the consensus matrix is the number of times points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} were clustered together divided by the total number of times they were selected together. The matrix is symmetric and each element is defined within the range [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . A consensus matrix is calculated for each K {\displaystyle K} to be tested, and the stability of each matrix, that is how far the matrix is towards a matrix of perfect stability (just zeros and ones) is used to determine the optimal K {\displaystyle K} . One way of quantifying the stability of the K {\displaystyle K} th consensus matrix is examining its CDF curve (see below). == Over-interpretation potential of the Monti consensus clustering algorithm == Monti consensus clustering can be a powerful tool for identifying clusters, but it needs to be applied with caution as shown by Şenbabaoğlu et al. It has been shown that the Monti consensus clustering algorithm is able to claim apparent stability of chance partitioning of null datasets drawn from a unimodal distribution, and thus has the potential to lead to over-interpretation of cluster stability in a real study. If clusters are not well separated, consensus clustering could lead one to conclude apparent structure when there is none, or declare cluster stability when it is subtle. Identifying false positive clusters is a common problem throughout cluster research, and has been addressed by methods such as SigClust and the GAP-statistic. However, these methods rely on certain assumptions for the null model that may not always be appropriate. Şenbabaoğlu et al demonstrated the original delta K metric to decide K {\displaystyle K} in the Monti algorithm performed poorly, and proposed a new superior metric for measuring the stability of consensus matrices using their CDF curves. In the CDF curve of a consensus matrix, the lower left portion represents sample pairs rarely clustered together, the upper right portion represents those almost always clustered together, whereas the middle segment represent those with ambiguous assignments in different clustering runs. The proportion of ambiguous clustering (PAC) score measure quantifies this middle segment; and is defined as the fraction of sample pairs with consensus indices falling in the interval (u1, u2) ∈ [0, 1] where u1 is a value close to 0 and u2 is a value close to 1 (for instance u1=0.1 and u2=0.9). A low value of PAC indicates a flat middle segment, and a low rate of discordant assignments across permuted clustering runs. One can therefore infer the optimal number of clusters by the K {\displaystyle K} value having the lowest PAC. == Related work == Clustering ensemble (Strehl and Ghosh): They considered various formulations for the problem, most of which reduce the problem to a hyper-graph partitioning problem. In one of their formulations they considered the same graph as in the correlation clustering problem. The solution they proposed is to compute the best k-partition of the graph, which does not take into account the penalty for merging two nodes that are far apart. Clustering aggregation (Fern and Brodley): They applied the clustering aggregation idea to a collection of soft clusterings they obtained by random projections. They used an agglomerative algorithm
Relational data mining
Relational data mining is the data mining technique for relational databases. Unlike traditional data mining algorithms, which look for patterns in a single table (propositional patterns), relational data mining algorithms look for patterns among multiple tables (relational patterns). For most types of propositional patterns, there are corresponding relational patterns. For example, there are relational classification rules (relational classification), relational regression tree, and relational association rules. There are several approaches to relational data mining: Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) Graph Mining Propositionalization Multi-view learning == Algorithms == Multi-Relation Association Rules: Multi-Relation Association Rules (MRAR) is a new class of association rules which in contrast to primitive, simple and even multi-relational association rules (that are usually extracted from multi-relational databases), each rule item consists of one entity but several relations. These relations indicate indirect relationship between the entities. Consider the following MRAR where the first item consists of three relations live in, nearby and humid: “Those who live in a place which is near by a city with humid climate type and also are younger than 20 -> their health condition is good”. Such association rules are extractable from RDBMS data or semantic web data. == Software == Safarii: a Data Mining environment for analysing large relational databases based on a multi-relational data mining engine. Dataconda: a software, free for research and teaching purposes, that helps mining relational databases without the use of SQL. == Datasets == Relational dataset repository: a collection of publicly available relational datasets.
Swish function
The swish function is a family of mathematical function defined as follows: swish β ( x ) = x sigmoid ( β x ) = x 1 + e − β x . {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=x\operatorname {sigmoid} (\beta x)={\frac {x}{1+e^{-\beta x}}}.} where β {\displaystyle \beta } can be constant (usually set to 1) or trainable and "sigmoid" refers to the logistic function. The swish family was designed to smoothly interpolate between a linear function and the Rectified linear unit (ReLU) function. When considering positive values, Swish is a particular case of doubly parameterized sigmoid shrinkage function defined in . Variants of the swish function include Mish. == Special values == For β = 0, the function is linear: f(x) = x/2. For β = 1, the function is the Sigmoid Linear Unit (SiLU). For β = 1.702, the function approximates GeLU. With β → ∞, the function converges to ReLU. Thus, the swish family smoothly interpolates between a linear function and the ReLU function. Since swish β ( x ) = swish 1 ( β x ) / β {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=\operatorname {swish} _{1}(\beta x)/\beta } , all instances of swish have the same shape as the default swish 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}} , zoomed by β {\displaystyle \beta } . One usually sets β > 0 {\displaystyle \beta >0} . When β {\displaystyle \beta } is trainable, this constraint can be enforced by β = e b {\displaystyle \beta =e^{b}} , where b {\displaystyle b} is trainable. swish 1 ( x ) = x 2 + x 2 4 − x 4 48 + x 6 480 + O ( x 8 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)={\frac {x}{2}}+{\frac {x^{2}}{4}}-{\frac {x^{4}}{48}}+{\frac {x^{6}}{480}}+O\left(x^{8}\right)} swish 1 ( x ) = x 2 tanh ( x 2 ) + x 2 swish 1 ( x ) + swish − 1 ( x ) = x tanh ( x 2 ) swish 1 ( x ) − swish − 1 ( x ) = x {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)&={\frac {x}{2}}\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)+{\frac {x}{2}}\\\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)+\operatorname {swish} _{-1}(x)&=x\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)\\\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)-\operatorname {swish} _{-1}(x)&=x\end{aligned}}} == Derivatives == Because swish β ( x ) = swish 1 ( β x ) / β {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=\operatorname {swish} _{1}(\beta x)/\beta } , it suffices to calculate its derivatives for the default case. swish 1 ′ ( x ) = x + sinh ( x ) 4 cosh 2 ( x 2 ) + 1 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}'(x)={\frac {x+\sinh(x)}{4\cosh ^{2}\left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}}+{\frac {1}{2}}} so swish 1 ′ ( x ) − 1 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}'(x)-{\frac {1}{2}}} is odd. swish 1 ″ ( x ) = 1 − x 2 tanh ( x 2 ) 2 cosh 2 ( x 2 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}''(x)={\frac {1-{\frac {x}{2}}\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}{2\cosh ^{2}\left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}}} so swish 1 ″ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}''(x)} is even. == History == SiLU was first proposed alongside the GELU in 2016, then again proposed in 2017 as the Sigmoid-weighted Linear Unit (SiL) in reinforcement learning. The SiLU/SiL was then again proposed as the SWISH over a year after its initial discovery, originally proposed without the learnable parameter β, so that β implicitly equaled 1. The swish paper was then updated to propose the activation with the learnable parameter β. In 2017, after performing analysis on ImageNet data, researchers from Google indicated that using this function as an activation function in artificial neural networks improves the performance, compared to ReLU and sigmoid functions. It is believed that one reason for the improvement is that the swish function helps alleviate the vanishing gradient problem during backpropagation.