Automation describes a wide range of technologies that reduce human intervention in processes, mainly by predetermining decision criteria, subprocess relationships, and related actions, as well as embodying those predeterminations in machines. Automation has been achieved by various means including mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical, electronic devices, and computers, usually in combination. Complicated systems, such as modern factories, airplanes, and ships typically use combinations of all of these techniques. The benefits of automation includes labor savings, reducing waste, savings in electricity costs, savings in material costs, and improvements to quality, accuracy, and precision. Automation includes the use of various equipment and control systems such as machinery, processes in factories, boilers, and heat-treating ovens, switching on telephone networks, steering, stabilization of ships, aircraft and other applications and vehicles with reduced human intervention. Examples range from a household thermostat controlling a boiler to a large industrial control system with tens of thousands of input measurements and output control signals. In the simplest type of an automatic control loop, a controller compares a measured value of a process with a desired set value and processes the resulting error signal to change some input to the process, in such a way that the process stays at its set point despite disturbances. This closed-loop control is an application of negative feedback to a system. The mathematical basis of control theory began in the 18th century and advanced rapidly in the 20th. The term automation, inspired by the earlier word automatic (coming from automaton), was not widely used before 1947, when Ford established an automation department. It was during this time that the industry was rapidly adopting feedback controllers, Technological advancements introduced in the 1930s revolutionized various industries significantly. The World Bank's World Development Report of 2019 shows evidence that the new industries and jobs in the technology sector outweigh the economic effects of workers being displaced by automation. Job losses and downward mobility blamed on automation have been cited as one of many factors in the resurgence of nationalist, protectionist and populist politics in the US, UK and France, among other countries since the 2010s. == History == === Early history === It was a preoccupation of the Greeks and Arabs (in the period between about 300 BC and about 1200 AD) to keep an accurate track of time. In Ptolemaic Egypt, about 270 BC, Ctesibius described a float regulator for a water clock, a device not unlike the ball and cock in a modern flush toilet. This was the earliest feedback-controlled mechanism. The appearance of the mechanical clock in the 14th century made the water clock and its feedback control system obsolete. The Persian Banū Mūsā brothers, in their Book of Ingenious Devices (850 AD), described a number of automatic controls. Two-step level controls for fluids, a form of discontinuous variable structure controls, were developed by the Banu Musa brothers. They also described a feedback controller. The design of feedback control systems up through the Industrial Revolution was by trial-and-error, together with a great deal of engineering intuition. It was not until the mid-19th century that the stability of feedback control systems was analyzed using mathematics, the formal language of automatic control theory. The centrifugal governor was invented by Christiaan Huygens in the seventeenth century, and used to adjust the gap between millstones. === Industrial Revolution in Western Europe === The introduction of prime movers, or self-driven machines advanced grain mills, furnaces, boilers, and the steam engine created a new requirement for automatic control systems including temperature regulators (invented in 1624; see Cornelius Drebbel), pressure regulators (1681), float regulators (1700) and speed control devices. Another control mechanism was used to tent the sails of windmills. It was patented by Edmund Lee in 1745. Also in 1745, Jacques de Vaucanson invented the first automated loom. Around 1800, Joseph Marie Jacquard created a punch-card system to program looms. In 1771 Richard Arkwright invented the first fully automated spinning mill driven by water power, known at the time as the water frame. An automatic flour mill was developed by Oliver Evans in 1785, making it the first completely automated industrial process. A centrifugal governor was used by Mr. Bunce of England in 1784 as part of a model steam crane. The centrifugal governor was adopted by James Watt for use on a steam engine in 1788 after Watt's partner Boulton saw one at a flour mill Boulton & Watt were building. The governor could not actually hold a set speed; the engine would assume a new constant speed in response to load changes. The governor was able to handle smaller variations such as those caused by fluctuating heat load to the boiler. Also, there was a tendency for oscillation whenever there was a speed change. As a consequence, engines equipped with this governor were not suitable for operations requiring constant speed, such as cotton spinning. Several improvements to the governor, plus improvements to valve cut-off timing on the steam engine, made the engine suitable for most industrial uses before the end of the 19th century. Advances in the steam engine stayed well ahead of science, both thermodynamics and control theory. The governor received relatively little scientific attention until James Clerk Maxwell published a paper that established the beginning of a theoretical basis for understanding control theory. === 20th century === Relay logic was introduced with factory electrification, which underwent rapid adaptation from 1900 through the 1920s. Central electric power stations were also undergoing rapid growth and the operation of new high-pressure boilers, steam turbines and electrical substations created a great demand for instruments and controls. Central control rooms became common in the 1920s, but as late as the early 1930s, most process controls were on-off. Operators typically monitored charts drawn by recorders that plotted data from instruments. To make corrections, operators manually opened or closed valves or turned switches on or off. Control rooms also used color-coded lights to send signals to workers in the plant to manually make certain changes. The development of the electronic amplifier during the 1920s, which was important for long-distance telephony, required a higher signal-to-noise ratio, which was solved by negative feedback noise cancellation. This and other telephony applications contributed to the control theory. In the 1940s and 1950s, German mathematician Irmgard Flügge-Lotz developed the theory of discontinuous automatic controls, which found military applications during the Second World War to fire control systems and aircraft navigation systems. Controllers, which were able to make calculated changes in response to deviations from a set point rather than on-off control, began being introduced in the 1930s. Controllers allowed manufacturing to continue showing productivity gains to offset the declining influence of factory electrification. Factory productivity was greatly increased by electrification in the 1920s. U.S. manufacturing productivity growth fell from 5.2%/yr 1919–29 to 2.76%/yr 1929–41. Alexander Field notes that spending on non-medical instruments increased significantly from 1929 to 1933 and remained strong thereafter. The First and Second World Wars saw major advancements in the field of mass communication and signal processing. Other key advances in automatic controls include differential equations, stability theory and system theory (1938), frequency domain analysis (1940), ship control (1950), and stochastic analysis (1941). Starting in 1958, various systems based on solid-state digital logic modules for hard-wired programmed logic controllers (the predecessors of programmable logic controllers [PLC]) emerged to replace electro-mechanical relay logic in industrial control systems for process control and automation, including early Telefunken/AEG Logistat, Siemens Simatic, Philips/Mullard/Valvo Norbit, BBC Sigmatronic, ACEC Logacec, Akkord Estacord, Krone Mibakron, Bistat, Datapac, Norlog, SSR, or Procontic systems. In 1959 Texaco's Port Arthur Refinery became the first chemical plant to use digital control. Conversion of factories to digital control began to spread rapidly in the 1970s as the price of computer hardware fell. === Significant applications === The automatic telephone switchboard was introduced in 1892 along with dial telephones. By 1929, 31.9% of the Bell system was automatic. Automatic telephone switching originally used vacuum tube amplifiers and electro-mechanical switches, which consumed a large amount of electricity. Call volume eve
Machine unlearning
Machine unlearning is a branch of machine learning focused on removing specific undesired element, such as private data, wrong or manipulated training data, outdated information, copyrighted material, harmful content, dangerous abilities, or misinformation, without needing to rebuild models from the ground up. Large language models, like the ones powering ChatGPT, may be asked not just to remove specific elements but also to unlearn a "concept," "fact," or "knowledge," which aren't easily linked to specific examples. New terms such as "model editing," "concept editing," and "knowledge unlearning" have emerged to describe this process. == History == Early research efforts were largely motivated by Article 17 of the GDPR, the European Union's privacy regulation commonly known as the "right to be forgotten" (RTBF), introduced in 2014. The GDPR did not anticipate that the development of large language models would make data erasure a complex task. This issue has since led to research on "machine unlearning," with a growing focus on removing copyrighted material, harmful content, dangerous capabilities, and misinformation. Just as early experiences in humans shape later ones, some concepts are more fundamental and harder to unlearn. A piece of knowledge may be so deeply embedded in the model's knowledge graph that unlearning it could cause internal contradictions, requiring adjustments to other parts of the graph to resolve them. Researchers have now also started studying unlearning in the context of removing incorrect or adversarially manipulated training data such as systematically biased labels or poisoning attacks. == Motivations == At present, machine unlearning is motivated by a growing range of concerns that extend well beyond the field's original focus on data privacy. A widely used taxonomy in the literature distinguishes two high-level categories of motivation. Access revocation covers cases where a data subject or rights holder requests the removal of data they own or control. This is most commonly associated with RTBF established by the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and analogous legislation such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). These regulations grant individuals the legal right to request erasure of their personal data from any system that has processed it, including models that were trained on it. Access revocation also encompasses the removal of copyrighted or pay-walled content that was incorporated into training corpora without the necessary licenses, a concern that has become prominent with the widespread use of largely web-scraped pre-training datasets. Model correction covers cases where the model exhibits undesirable behavior arising from the training data, regardless of any individual's request. This includes: Removal of toxic, biased, or unsafe outputs introduced by harmful content in the training set Correction of stale or factually incorrect associations, such as outdated knowledge encoded in a deployed model Removal of dangerous capabilities, such as detailed knowledge of the synthesis of chemical or biological agents Correction of the influence of data poisoning or adversarial attacks that have corrupted model behavior This second category has been formalized as corrective machine unlearning, which frames unlearning as a post-training mechanism for repairing the effects of bad or harmful training data. It is closely related to the AI safety literature, where data filtering alone has been found insufficient to prevent hazardous knowledge from being encoded in model weights, motivating unlearning as a complementary risk mitigation strategy. A further distinction has been drawn in the literature between removal {eliminating the influence of specific training data on model parameters) and suppression (preventing the model from generating specific outputs regardless of how that knowledge is encoded). These two goals are not equivalent: removing training data does not guarantee meaningful output suppression, and suppressing outputs does not constitute removal of the underlying training data's influence. == SISA Training == SISA is a training strategy consisting of four mechanisms designed to make machine unlearning more efficient by structuring how models are trained and updated. Its goal is to allow a system to remove the influence of specific data points without retraining an entire model from scratch. By reorganizing training data and workflows, SISA reduces the computational burden of unlearning requests. Sharding divides the training dataset into multiple disjoint subsets, or shards. Each shard is used to train a separate model instance. This ensures that a single data point affects only one shard, so unlearning it requires updating only the corresponding shard rather than the full model. Isolation refers to training each shard independently, with nothing shared across shards during the training process. This separation prevents cross-contamination between shards, ensuring that forgetting data in one shard does not require adjustments to any others. Slicing breaks the data within each shard into sequential slices and stores model states after each slice is trained on. When an unlearning request targets a piece of data, the system can roll back to the checkpoint before the point was seen and retrain only from that slice forward. This reduces retraining time even within a shard. Aggregation occurs at inference, when the model is queried. It combines the outputs of each shard to determine the output of the overall model. This is often through majority voting or averaging. This allows SISA-trained systems to behave like a single model despite being composed of multiple shard-level models. Together, these mechanisms enable machine learning systems to forget specific data points with far lower computational cost than full retraining. The trade-off is that sharding and slicing can lead to reduced model accuracy, worse generalization, and increased storage requirements for the intermediate checkpoints. This can be tolerable based on the needs of the individual or organization to comply with "right to be forgotten" or efficiently recover from backdoor attacks. == Algorithms == Machine unlearning algorithms are broadly categorized into exact and approximate methods, reflecting a fundamental trade-off between formal guarantees and computational tractability. === Exact Unlearning === Exact unlearning methods produce a model that is statistically indistinguishable from one retrained from scratch on the dataset with the forget data removed. The canonical framework for exact unlearning is SISA Training (Sharded, Isolated, Sliced, and Aggregated), introduced by Bourtoule et al. (2021). SISA partitions the training dataset into disjoint shards and trains a separate sub-model on each. At inference time, predictions are aggregated across sub-models. When an unlearning request is received, only the sub-model corresponding to the shard containing the target data requires retraining, reducing computational overhead proportionally to the number of shards. Exact methods provide the strongest guarantees but become prohibitively expensive for large pre-trained neural networks and are generally limited to settings where training can be structured in advance. === Approximate Unlearning === Approximate unlearning methods seek to produce a model whose behavior is sufficiently close to an exactly unlearned model without the cost of full retraining. These methods dominate practical applications. Common approaches include: Gradient Ascent: The model is fine-tuned by maximizing the loss on the forget set, directly degrading its performance on targeted data. This is the most direct approach but risks destabilizing performance on retained data. Random Labelling: The model is fine-tuned on the forget set using randomly shuffled labels, confusing its associations with the targeted data while producing a less aggressive weight shift than pure gradient ascent. Gradient Difference: Combines gradient ascent on the forget set with simultaneous gradient descent on the retain set, using the retain objective as a regularizer to preserve general model utility. KL Divergence Regularization: Minimizes the KL divergence between the outputs of the unlearned model and the original model on the retain set, anchoring behavior on data the model should remember. Weight Pruning and Fine-tuning: Parameters with the smallest L1-norm are pruned — targeting weights most weakly associated with general knowledge and potentially most associated with the forget set — followed by fine-tuning on the retain set to restore utility. Layer Reset and Fine-tuning: The first or last k layers are re-initialized to random weights and the model is subsequently fine-tuned on the retain set. This is a coarse but computationally simple approach. Selective Synaptic Dampening: Uses influence functions to estimate the effect of individual trainin
Analogical modeling
Analogical modeling (AM) is a formal theory of exemplar based analogical reasoning, proposed by Royal Skousen, professor of Linguistics and English language at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. It is applicable to language modeling and other categorization tasks. Analogical modeling is related to connectionism and nearest neighbor approaches, in that it is data-based rather than abstraction-based; but it is distinguished by its ability to cope with imperfect datasets (such as caused by simulated short term memory limits) and to base predictions on all relevant segments of the dataset, whether near or far. In language modeling, AM has successfully predicted empirically valid forms for which no theoretical explanation was known (see the discussion of Finnish morphology in Skousen et al. 2002). == Implementation == === Overview === An exemplar-based model consists of a general-purpose modeling engine and a problem-specific dataset. Within the dataset, each exemplar (a case to be reasoned from, or an informative past experience) appears as a feature vector: a row of values for the set of parameters that define the problem. For example, in a spelling-to-sound task, the feature vector might consist of the letters of a word. Each exemplar in the dataset is stored with an outcome, such as a phoneme or phone to be generated. When the model is presented with a novel situation (in the form of an outcome-less feature vector), the engine algorithmically sorts the dataset to find exemplars that helpfully resemble it, and selects one, whose outcome is the model's prediction. The particulars of the algorithm distinguish one exemplar-based modeling system from another. In AM, we think of the feature values as characterizing a context, and the outcome as a behavior that occurs within that context. Accordingly, the novel situation is known as the given context. Given the known features of the context, the AM engine systematically generates all contexts that include it (all of its supracontexts), and extracts from the dataset the exemplars that belong to each. The engine then discards those supracontexts whose outcomes are inconsistent (this measure of consistency will be discussed further below), leaving an analogical set of supracontexts, and probabilistically selects an exemplar from the analogical set with a bias toward those in large supracontexts. This multilevel search exponentially magnifies the likelihood of a behavior's being predicted as it occurs reliably in settings that specifically resemble the given context. === Analogical modeling in detail === AM performs the same process for each case it is asked to evaluate. The given context, consisting of n variables, is used as a template to generate 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} supracontexts. Each supracontext is a set of exemplars in which one or more variables have the same values that they do in the given context, and the other variables are ignored. In effect, each is a view of the data, created by filtering for some criteria of similarity to the given context, and the total set of supracontexts exhausts all such views. Alternatively, each supracontext is a theory of the task or a proposed rule whose predictive power needs to be evaluated. It is important to note that the supracontexts are not equal peers one with another; they are arranged by their distance from the given context, forming a hierarchy. If a supracontext specifies all of the variables that another one does and more, it is a subcontext of that other one, and it lies closer to the given context. (The hierarchy is not strictly branching; each supracontext can itself be a subcontext of several others, and can have several subcontexts.) This hierarchy becomes significant in the next step of the algorithm. The engine now chooses the analogical set from among the supracontexts. A supracontext may contain exemplars that only exhibit one behavior; it is deterministically homogeneous and is included. It is a view of the data that displays regularity, or a relevant theory that has never yet been disproven. A supracontext may exhibit several behaviors, but contain no exemplars that occur in any more specific supracontext (that is, in any of its subcontexts); in this case it is non-deterministically homogeneous and is included. Here there is no great evidence that a systematic behavior occurs, but also no counterargument. Finally, a supracontext may be heterogeneous, meaning that it exhibits behaviors that are found in a subcontext (closer to the given context), and also behaviors that are not. Where the ambiguous behavior of the nondeterministically homogeneous supracontext was accepted, this is rejected because the intervening subcontext demonstrates that there is a better theory to be found. The heterogeneous supracontext is therefore excluded. This guarantees that we see an increase in meaningfully consistent behavior in the analogical set as we approach the given context. With the analogical set chosen, each appearance of an exemplar (for a given exemplar may appear in several of the analogical supracontexts) is given a pointer to every other appearance of an exemplar within its supracontexts. One of these pointers is then selected at random and followed, and the exemplar to which it points provides the outcome. This gives each supracontext an importance proportional to the square of its size, and makes each exemplar likely to be selected in direct proportion to the sum of the sizes of all analogically consistent supracontexts in which it appears. Then, of course, the probability of predicting a particular outcome is proportional to the summed probabilities of all the exemplars that support it. (Skousen 2002, in Skousen et al. 2002, pp. 11–25, and Skousen 2003, both passim) === Formulas === Given a context with n {\displaystyle n} elements: total number of pairings: n 2 {\displaystyle n^{2}} number of agreements for outcome i: n i 2 {\displaystyle n_{i}^{2}} number of disagreements for outcome i: n i ( n − n i ) {\displaystyle n_{i}(n-n_{i})} total number of agreements: ∑ n i 2 {\displaystyle \sum {n_{i}^{2}}} total number of disagreements: ∑ n i ( n − n i ) = n 2 − ∑ n i 2 {\displaystyle \sum {n_{i}(n-n_{i})}=n^{2}-\sum {n_{i}^{2}}} === Example === This terminology is best understood through an example. In the example used in the second chapter of Skousen (1989), each context consists of three variables with potential values 0-3 Variable 1: 0,1,2,3 Variable 2: 0,1,2,3 Variable 3: 0,1,2,3 The two outcomes for the dataset are e and r, and the exemplars are: 3 1 0 e 0 3 2 r 2 1 0 r 2 1 2 r 3 1 1 r We define a network of pointers like so: The solid lines represent pointers between exemplars with matching outcomes; the dotted lines represent pointers between exemplars with non-matching outcomes. The statistics for this example are as follows: n = 5 {\displaystyle n=5} n r = 4 {\displaystyle n_{r}=4} n e = 1 {\displaystyle n_{e}=1} total number of pairings: n 2 = 25 {\displaystyle n^{2}=25} number of agreements for outcome r: n r 2 = 16 {\displaystyle n_{r}^{2}=16} number of agreements for outcome e: n e 2 = 1 {\displaystyle n_{e}^{2}=1} number of disagreements for outcome r: n r ( n − n r ) = 4 {\displaystyle n_{r}(n-n_{r})=4} number of disagreements for outcome e: n e ( n − n e ) = 4 {\displaystyle n_{e}(n-n_{e})=4} total number of agreements: n r 2 + n e 2 = 17 {\displaystyle n_{r}^{2}+n_{e}^{2}=17} total number of disagreements: n r ( n − n r ) + n e ( n − n e ) = n 2 − ( n r 2 + n e 2 ) = 8 {\displaystyle n_{r}(n-n_{r})+n_{e}(n-n_{e})=n^{2}-(n_{r}^{2}+n_{e}^{2})=8} uncertainty or fraction of disagreement: 8 / 25 = .32 {\displaystyle 8/25=.32} Behavior can only be predicted for a given context; in this example, let us predict the outcome for the context "3 1 2". To do this, we first find all of the contexts containing the given context; these contexts are called supracontexts. We find the supracontexts by systematically eliminating the variables in the given context; with m variables, there will generally be 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} supracontexts. The following table lists each of the sub- and supracontexts; x means "not x", and - means "anything". These contexts are shown in the venn diagram below: The next step is to determine which exemplars belong to which contexts in order to determine which of the contexts are homogeneous. The table below shows each of the subcontexts, their behavior in terms of the given exemplars, and the number of disagreements within the behavior: Analyzing the subcontexts in the table above, we see that there is only 1 subcontext with any disagreements: "3 1 2", which in the dataset consists of "3 1 0 e" and "3 1 1 r". There are 2 disagreements in this subcontext; 1 pointing from each of the exemplars to the other (see the pointer network pictured above). Therefore, only supracontexts containing this subcontext will contain any disagreements. We use a simple rule to identify the homogeneous supraco
Lattice Miner
Lattice Miner is a formal concept analysis software tool for the construction, visualization and manipulation of concept lattices. It allows the generation of formal concepts and association rules as well as the transformation of formal contexts via apposition, subposition, reduction and object/attribute generalization, and the manipulation of concept lattices via approximation, projection and selection. Lattice Miner allows also the drawing of nested line diagrams. == Introduction == Formal concept analysis (FCA) is a branch of applied mathematics based on the formalization of concept and concept hierarchy and mainly used as a framework for conceptual clustering and rule mining. Over the last two decades, a collection of tools have emerged to help FCA users visualize and analyze concept lattices. They range from the earliest DOS-based implementations (e.g., ConImp and GLAD) to more recent implementations in Java like ToscanaJ, Galicia, ConExp and Coron. A main issue in the development of FCA tools is to visualize large concept lattices and provide efficient mechanisms to highlight patterns (e.g., concepts, associations) that could be relevant to the user. The initial objective of the FCA tool called Lattice Miner was to focus on visualization mechanisms for the representation of concept lattices, including nested line diagrams. Later on, many other interesting features were integrated into the tool. == Functional architecture of Lattice Miner == Lattice Miner is a Java-based platform whose functions are articulated around a core. The Lattice Miner core provides all low-level operations and structures for the representation and manipulation of contexts, lattices and association rules. Mainly, the core of Lattice Miner consists of three modules: context, concept and association rule modules. The user interface offers a context editor and concept lattice manipulator to assist the user in a set of tasks. The architecture of Lattice Miner is open and modular enough to allow the integration of new features and facilities in each one of its components. === Context module === The context module offers all the basic operations and structures to manipulate binary and valued contexts as well as context decomposition to produce nested line diagrams. Basic context operations include apposition, subposition, generalization, clarification, reduction as well as the complementary context computation. The module provides also the arrow relations (for context reduction and decomposition) [2]. The tool has an input LMB format and recognizes the binary format SLF found in Galicia and the format CEX produced by ConExp. === Concept module === The main function of the concept module is to generate the concepts of the current binary context and construct the corresponding lattice and nested structure (see Figures 2 and 3). It provides the user with basic operators such as projection, selection, and exact search as well as advanced features like pair approximation. Some known algorithms are included in this module such as Bordat’s procedure, Godin’s algorithm and NextClosure algorithm. The approximation feature implemented in Lattice Miner is based on the following idea: given a pair (X,Y) where X ⊆ G, and Y ⊆ M, is there a set of formal concepts (Ai,Bi) which are “close to” (X,Y)? To answer this question, The tool starts to identify the type of couple that the pair (X,Y) represents. It can be a formal concept, a protoconcept, a semiconcept or a preconcept. In the last case, the approximation is given by the interval [(X",X′),(Y′,Y")] and highlighted in the line diagram. === Association rule module === This module includes procedures for computing the (stem) Guigues–Duquenne base using NextClosure algorithm [3], as well as the generic and informative bases. Implications with negation can be obtained using the apposition of a context and its complementary. This module embeds also procedures for the computation of a non-redundant family C of implications and the closure of a set Y of attributes for the given implication set C. === User interface === The initial objective of Lattice Miner was to focus on lattice drawing and visualization either as a flat or nested structure by taking into account the cognitive process of human beings and known principles for lattice drawing (e.g., reducing the number of edge intersections, ensuring diagram symmetry). Some well-known visualization techniques were implemented such as focus & context and fisheye view. The basic idea behind focus & context visualization paradigm is to allow a viewer to see key (important) objects in full detail in the foreground (focus) while at the same time an overview of all the surrounding information (context) remains available in the background. Lattice Miner translates the focus & context paradigm into clear and blurred elements while the size of nodes and the intensity of their color were used to indicate their importance. Various forms of highlighting, labelling and animation are also provided. In order to better handle the display of large lattices, nested line diagrams are offered in the tool. Figure 3 shows the third level of the nested line diagram corresponding to the binary context of Figure 1 where three levels of nesting are defined. Each one of the inner nodes of this diagram represents a combination of attributes from the previous two (outer) levels. Real inner concepts (see the node on the left hand-side of the diagram) are identified by colored nodes while void elements are in grey color. Each node of levels 1 and 2 can be expanded to exhibit its internal line diagram. Both flat and nested diagrams can be saved as an image. Simple (flat) lattices can also be saved as an XML format file.
Local tangent space alignment
Local tangent space alignment (LTSA) is a method for manifold learning, which can efficiently learn a nonlinear embedding into low-dimensional coordinates from high-dimensional data, and can also reconstruct high-dimensional coordinates from embedding coordinates. It is based on the intuition that when a manifold is correctly unfolded, all of the tangent hyperplanes to the manifold will become aligned. It begins by computing the k-nearest neighbors of every point. It computes the tangent space at every point by computing the d-first principal components in each local neighborhood. It then optimizes to find an embedding that aligns the tangent spaces, but it ignores the label information conveyed by data samples, and thus can not be used for classification directly.
Lexical choice
Lexical choice is the subtask of Natural language generation that involves choosing the content words (nouns, non-auxiliary verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) in a generated text. Function words (determiners, for example) are usually chosen during realisation. == Examples == The simplest type of lexical choice involves mapping a domain concept (perhaps represented in an ontology) to a word. For example, the concept Finger might be mapped to the word finger. A more complex situation is when a domain concept is expressed using different words in different situations. For example, the domain concept Value-Change can be expressed in many ways: The temperature rose: the verb rose is used for a Value-Change in temperature which increases the value. The temperature fell: the verb fell is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value. The rain got heavier: the phrase got heavier is used for a Value-Change in precipitation amount when the precipitation is rain. Sometimes words can communicate additional contextual information, for example: The temperature plummeted: the verb plummeted is used for a Value-Change in temperature which decreases the value, when the change is rapid and large. Contextual information is especially significant for vague terms such as tall. For example, a 2m tall man is tall, but a 2m tall horse is small. == Linguistic perspective == Lexical choice modules must be informed by linguistic knowledge of how the system's input data maps onto words. This is a question of semantics, but it is also influenced by syntactic factors (such as collocation effects) and pragmatic factors (such as context). Hence NLG systems need linguistic models of how meaning is mapped to words in the target domain (genre) of the NLG system. Genre tends to be very important; for example the verb veer has a very specific meaning in weather forecasts (wind direction is changing in a clockwise direction) which it does not have in general English, and a weather-forecast generator must be aware of this genre-specific meaning. In some cases there are major differences in how different people use the same word; for example, some people use by evening to mean 6PM and others use it to mean midnight. Psycholinguists have shown that when people speak to each other, they agree on a common interpretation via lexical alignment; this is not something which NLG systems can yet do. Ultimately, lexical choice must deal with the fundamental issue of how language relates to the non-linguistic world. For example, a system which chose colour terms such as red to describe objects in a digital image would need to know which RGB pixel values could generally be described as red; how this was influenced by visual (lighting, other objects in the scene) and linguistic (other objects being discussed) context; what pragmatic connotations were associated with red (for example, when an apple is called red, it is assumed to be ripe as well as have the colour red); and so forth. == Algorithms and models == A number of algorithms and models have been developed for lexical choice in the research community, for example Edmonds developed a model for choosing between near-synonyms (words with similar core meanings but different connotations). However such algorithms and models have not been widely used in applied NLG systems; such systems have instead often used quite simple computational models, and invested development effort in linguistic analysis instead of algorithm development.
Error tolerance (PAC learning)
In PAC learning, error tolerance refers to the ability of an algorithm to learn when the examples received have been corrupted in some way. In fact, this is a very common and important issue since in many applications it is not possible to access noise-free data. Noise can interfere with the learning process at different levels: the algorithm may receive data that have been occasionally mislabeled, or the inputs may have some false information, or the classification of the examples may have been maliciously adulterated. == Notation and the Valiant learning model == In the following, let X {\displaystyle X} be our n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional input space. Let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be a class of functions that we wish to use in order to learn a { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued target function f {\displaystyle f} defined over X {\displaystyle X} . Let D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} be the distribution of the inputs over X {\displaystyle X} . The goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . Let us suppose we have a function s i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle size(f)} that can measure the complexity of f {\displaystyle f} . Let Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} be an oracle that, whenever called, returns an example x {\displaystyle x} and its correct label f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . When no noise corrupts the data, we can define learning in the Valiant setting: Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the Valiant setting if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , 1 δ , n , size ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,{\text{size}}(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition error ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle {\text{error}}(h)\leq \varepsilon } . In the following we will define learnability of f {\displaystyle f} when data have suffered some modification. == Classification noise == In the classification noise model a noise rate 0 ≤ η < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta <{\frac {1}{2}}} is introduced. Then, instead of Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} that returns always the correct label of example x {\displaystyle x} , algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can only call a faulty oracle Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} that will flip the label of x {\displaystyle x} with probability η {\displaystyle \eta } . As in the Valiant case, the goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . In applications it is difficult to have access to the real value of η {\displaystyle \eta } , but we assume we have access to its upperbound η B {\displaystyle \eta _{B}} . Note that if we allow the noise rate to be 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} , then learning becomes impossible in any amount of computation time, because every label conveys no information about the target function. Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the classification noise model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 ≤ η ≤ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta \leq {\frac {1}{2}}} , 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 1 − 2 η B , 1 ε , 1 δ , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{1-2\eta _{B}}},{\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,size(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \varepsilon } . == Statistical query learning == Statistical Query Learning is a kind of active learning problem in which the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can decide if to request information about the likelihood P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} that a function f {\displaystyle f} correctly labels example x {\displaystyle x} , and receives an answer accurate within a tolerance α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Formally, whenever the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls the oracle Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} , it receives as feedback probability Q f ( x ) {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}} , such that Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } . Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the statistical query learning model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} and polynomials p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , q ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle q(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , and r ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle r(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} the following hold: Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} can evaluate P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} in time q ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle q\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} ; 1 α {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\alpha }}} is bounded by r ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle r\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} outputs a model h {\displaystyle h} such that e r r ( h ) < ε {\displaystyle err(h)<\varepsilon } , in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} . Note that the confidence parameter δ {\displaystyle \delta } does not appear in the definition of learning. This is because the main purpose of δ {\displaystyle \delta } is to allow the learning algorithm a small probability of failure due to an unrepresentative sample. Since now Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} always guarantees to meet the approximation criterion Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } , the failure probability is no longer needed. The statistical query model is strictly weaker than the PAC model: any efficiently SQ-learnable class is efficiently PAC learnable in the presence of classification noise, but there exist efficient PAC-learnable problems such as parity that are not efficiently SQ-learnable. == Malicious classification == In the malicious classification model an adversary generates errors to foil the learning algorithm. This setting describes situations of error burst, which may occur when for a limited time transmission equipment malfunctions repeatedly. Formally, algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls an oracle Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )} that returns a correctly labeled example x {\displaystyle x} drawn, as usual, from distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} over the input space with probability 1 − β {\displaystyle 1-\beta } , but it returns with probability β {\displaystyle \beta } an example drawn from a distribution that is not related to D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . Moreover, this maliciously chosen example may strategically selected by an adversary who has knowledge of f {\displaystyle f} , β {\displaystyle \beta } , D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} , or the current progress of the learning algorithm. Definition: Given a bound β B < 1 2 {\displaystyle \beta _{B}<{\frac {1}{2}}} for 0 ≤ β < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \beta <{\frac {1}{2}}} , we say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the malicious classification model, if there exist a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )}