Semantic analytics, also termed semantic relatedness, is the use of ontologies to analyze content in web resources. This field of research combines text analytics and Semantic Web technologies like RDF. Semantic analytics measures the relatedness of different ontological concepts. Some academic research groups that have active project in this area include Kno.e.sis Center at Wright State University among others. == History == An important milestone in the beginning of semantic analytics occurred in 1996, although the historical progression of these algorithms is largely subjective. In his seminal study publication, Philip Resnik established that computers have the capacity to emulate human judgement. Spanning the publications of multiple journals, improvements to the accuracy of general semantic analytic computations all claimed to revolutionize the field. However, the lack of a standard terminology throughout the late 1990s was the cause of much miscommunication. This prompted Budanitsky & Hirst to standardize the subject in 2006 with a summary that also set a framework for modern spelling and grammar analysis. In the early days of semantic analytics, obtaining a large enough reliable knowledge bases was difficult. In 2006, Strube & Ponzetto demonstrated that Wikipedia could be used in semantic analytic calculations. The usage of a large knowledge base like Wikipedia allows for an increase in both the accuracy and applicability of semantic analytics. == Methods == Given the subjective nature of the field, different methods used in semantic analytics depend on the domain of application. No singular methods is considered correct, however one of the most generally effective and applicable method is explicit semantic analysis (ESA). ESA was developed by Evgeniy Gabrilovich and Shaul Markovitch in the late 2000s. It uses machine learning techniques to create a semantic interpreter, which extracts text fragments from articles into a sorted list. The fragments are sorted by how related they are to the surrounding text. Latent semantic analysis (LSA) is another common method that does not use ontologies, only considering the text in the input space. == Applications == Entity linking Ontology building / knowledge base population Search and query tasks Natural language processing Spoken dialog systems (e.g., Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, Microsoft's Cortana) Artificial intelligence Knowledge management The application of semantic analysis methods generally streamlines organizational processes of any knowledge management system. Academic libraries often use a domain-specific application to create a more efficient organizational system. By classifying scientific publications using semantics and Wikipedia, researchers are helping people find resources faster. Search engines like Semantic Scholar provide organized access to millions of articles.
Drops (app)
Drops is a language learning app that was created in Estonia by Daniel Farkas and Mark Szulyovszky in 2015. It is the second product from the company, after their first app, LearnInvisible, had issues in retaining a user's engagement over the required time period. The languages available include Native Hawaiian and Māori, and was classified as one of the fifty "Most Innovative Companies" for 2019 by Fast Company. The company partnered with Global Eagle Entertainment to include Travel Talk, a feature intended to focus on words and phrases frequently used by travelers. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the number of users increased by 55 percent in the United States and 92 percent in the United Kingdom. Droplets, a language app for children, includes profiles for multiple teachers working with remote students. The company also produces an app called Scripts, intended to help users learn to write alphabets. The app was purchased by the Norwegian company Kahoot! on 24 November 2020.
Cross-entropy
In information theory, the cross-entropy between two probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} , over the same underlying set of events, measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set when the coding scheme used for the set is optimized for an estimated probability distribution q {\displaystyle q} , rather than the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} . == Definition == The cross-entropy of the distribution q {\displaystyle q} relative to a distribution p {\displaystyle p} over a given set is defined as follows: H ( p , q ) = − E p [ log q ] , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=-\operatorname {E} _{p}[\log q],} where E p [ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{p}[\cdot ]} is the expected value operator with respect to the distribution p {\displaystyle p} . The definition may be formulated using the Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , divergence of p {\displaystyle p} from q {\displaystyle q} (also known as the relative entropy of p {\displaystyle p} with respect to q {\displaystyle q} ). H ( p , q ) = H ( p ) + D K L ( p ∥ q ) , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=H(p)+D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q),} where H ( p ) {\displaystyle H(p)} is the entropy of p {\displaystyle p} . For discrete probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with the same support X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , this means The situation for continuous distributions is analogous. We have to assume that p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are absolutely continuous with respect to some reference measure r {\displaystyle r} (usually r {\displaystyle r} is a Lebesgue measure on a Borel σ-algebra). Let P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} be probability density functions of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with respect to r {\displaystyle r} . Then − ∫ X P ( x ) log Q ( x ) d x = E p [ − log Q ] , {\displaystyle -\int _{\mathcal {X}}P(x)\,\log Q(x)\,\mathrm {d} x=\operatorname {E} _{p}[-\log Q],} and therefore NB: The notation H ( p , q ) {\displaystyle H(p,q)} is also used for a different concept, the joint entropy of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} . == Motivation == In information theory, the Kraft–McMillan theorem establishes that any directly decodable coding scheme for coding a message to identify one value x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of a set of possibilities { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} can be seen as representing an implicit probability distribution q ( x i ) = ( 1 2 ) ℓ i {\displaystyle q(x_{i})=\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)^{\ell _{i}}} over { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} , where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is the length of the code for x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} in bits. Therefore, cross-entropy can be interpreted as the expected message-length per datum when a wrong distribution q {\displaystyle q} is assumed while the data actually follows a distribution p {\displaystyle p} . That is why the expectation is taken over the true probability distribution p {\displaystyle p} and not q . {\displaystyle q.} Indeed the expected message-length under the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} is E p [ ℓ ] = − E p [ ln q ( x ) ln ( 2 ) ] = − E p [ log 2 q ( x ) ] = − ∑ x i p ( x i ) log 2 q ( x i ) = − ∑ x p ( x ) log 2 q ( x ) = H ( p , q ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {E} _{p}[\ell ]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[{\frac {\ln {q(x)}}{\ln(2)}}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[\log _{2}{q(x)}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x_{i}}p(x_{i})\,\log _{2}q(x_{i})\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x}p(x)\,\log _{2}q(x)=H(p,q).\end{aligned}}} == Estimation == There are many situations where cross-entropy needs to be measured but the distribution of p {\displaystyle p} is unknown. An example is language modeling, where a model is created based on a training set T {\displaystyle T} , and then its cross-entropy is measured on a test set to assess how accurate the model is in predicting the test data. In this example, p {\displaystyle p} is the true distribution of words in any corpus, and q {\displaystyle q} is the distribution of words as predicted by the model. Since the true distribution is unknown, cross-entropy cannot be directly calculated. In these cases, an estimate of cross-entropy is calculated using the following formula: H ( T , q ) = − ∑ i = 1 N 1 N log 2 q ( x i ) {\displaystyle H(T,q)=-\sum _{i=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}\log _{2}q(x_{i})} where N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the test set, and q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(x)} is the probability of event x {\displaystyle x} estimated from the training set. In other words, q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} is the probability estimate of the model that the i-th word of the text is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . The sum is averaged over the N {\displaystyle N} words of the test. This is a Monte Carlo estimate of the true cross-entropy, where the test set is treated as samples from p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} . == Relation to maximum likelihood == The cross entropy arises in classification problems when introducing a logarithm in the guise of the log-likelihood function. This section concerns the estimation of the probabilities of different discrete outcomes. To this end, denote a parametrized family of distributions by q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } subject to the optimization effort. Consider a given finite sequence of N {\displaystyle N} values x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from a training set, obtained from conditionally independent sampling. The likelihood assigned to any considered parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the model is then given by the product over all probabilities q θ ( X = x i ) {\displaystyle q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})} . Repeated occurrences are possible, leading to equal factors in the product. If the count of occurrences of the value equal to x {\displaystyle x} is denoted by # x {\displaystyle \#x} , then the frequency of that value equals # x / N {\displaystyle \#x/N} . If p ( X = x ) {\displaystyle p(X=x)} is the underlying probability distribution, for large N {\displaystyle N} we expect p ( X = x ) ≈ # x / N {\displaystyle p(X=x)\approx \#x/N} , by the law of large numbers. Writing our likelihood function as the product of observations from the distribution q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} : L ( θ ; x ) = ∏ i q θ ( X = x i ) = ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) # x ≈ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) = exp log [ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) ] = exp ( ∑ x N ⋅ p ( X = x ) log q θ ( X = x ) ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })&=\prod _{i}q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})=\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{\#x}\\&\approx \prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}=\exp \log \left[\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}\right]\\&=\exp \left(\sum _{x}N\cdot p(X=x)\log q_{\theta }(X=x)^{}\right),\end{aligned}}} where we have used the calculation rules for the logarithm in the final line. Notice how the exponent contains a − H ( p , q θ ) {\displaystyle -H(p,q_{\theta })} term. Taking the logarithm of both sides gives: log L ( θ ; x ) = − N ⋅ H ( p , q θ ) . {\displaystyle \log {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })=-N\cdot H(p,q_{\theta }).} Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by this final step. Similarly, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by the factor of N {\displaystyle N} . So we observe that the likelihood maximization amounts to minimization of the cross-entropy. == Cross-entropy minimization == Cross-entropy minimization is frequently used in optimization and rare-event probability estimation. When comparing a distribution q {\displaystyle q} against a fixed reference distribution p {\displaystyle p} , cross-entropy and KL divergence are identical up to an additive constant (since p {\displaystyle p} is fixed): According to the Gibbs' inequality, both take on their minimal values when p = q {\displaystyle p=q} , which is 0 {\displaystyle 0} for KL divergence, and H ( p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (p)} for cross-entropy. In the engineering literature, the principle of minimizing KL divergence (Kullback's "Principle of Minimum Discrimination Information") is often called the Principle of Minimum Cross-Entropy (MCE), or Minxent. However, as discussed in the article Kullback–Leibler divergence, sometimes the distribution q {\displaystyle q} is the fixed prior reference distribution, and the distribution p {\displaystyle p} is optimized to be as close to q {\displaystyle q} as possible, subject to some constraint. In this case the two minimizations are not equivalent. This has led to some ambiguity in the literature, with some authors attempting to resolve the inconsistency by restating cross-entropy to be D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , rather than H (
Bondy's theorem
In mathematics, Bondy's theorem is a bound on the number of elements needed to distinguish the sets in a family of sets from each other. It belongs to the field of combinatorics, and is named after John Adrian Bondy, who published it in 1972. == Statement == The theorem is as follows: Let X be a set with n elements and let A1, A2, ..., An be distinct subsets of X. Then there exists a subset S of X with n − 1 elements such that the sets Ai ∩ S are all distinct. In other words, if we have a 0-1 matrix with n rows and n columns such that each row is distinct, we can remove one column such that the rows of the resulting n × (n − 1) matrix are distinct. == Example == Consider the 4 × 4 matrix [ 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&1&0&1\\0&1&0&1\\0&0&1&1\\0&1&1&0\end{bmatrix}}} where all rows are pairwise distinct. If we delete, for example, the first column, the resulting matrix [ 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&0&1\\1&0&1\\0&1&1\\1&1&0\end{bmatrix}}} no longer has this property: the first row is identical to the second row. Nevertheless, by Bondy's theorem we know that we can always find a column that can be deleted without introducing any identical rows. In this case, we can delete the third column: all rows of the 3 × 4 matrix [ 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&1&1\\0&1&1\\0&0&1\\0&1&0\end{bmatrix}}} are distinct. Another possibility would have been deleting the fourth column. == Learning theory application == From the perspective of computational learning theory, Bondy's theorem can be rephrased as follows: Let C be a concept class over a finite domain X. Then there exists a subset S of X with the size at most |C| − 1 such that S is a witness set for every concept in C. This implies that every finite concept class C has its teaching dimension bounded by |C| − 1.
Apache Giraph
Apache Giraph is an Apache project to perform graph processing on big data. Giraph utilizes Apache Hadoop's MapReduce implementation to process graphs. Facebook used Giraph with some performance improvements to analyze one trillion edges using 200 machines in 4 minutes. Giraph is based on a paper published by Google about its own graph processing system called Pregel. It can be compared to other Big Graph processing libraries such as Cassovary. As of September 2023, it is no longer actively developed.
Glyph (data visualization)
In the context of data visualization, a glyph is any marker, such as an arrow or similar marking, used to specify part of a visualization. This is a representation to visualize data where the data set is presented as a collection of visual objects. These visual objects are collectively called a glyph. It helps visualizing data relation in data analysis, statistics, etc. by using any custom notation. In the context of data visualization, a glyph is the visual representation of a piece of data where the attributes of a graphical entity are dictated by one or more attributes of a data record. == Constructing glyphs == Glyph construction can be a complex process when there are many dimensions to be represented in the visualization. Maguire et al proposed a taxonomy based approach to glyph-design that uses a tree to guide the visual encodings used to representation various data items. Duffy et al created perhaps one of the most complex glyph representations with their representation of sperm movement.
Expectation–maximization algorithm
In statistics, an expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm is an iterative method to find (local) maximum likelihood or maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates of parameters in statistical models, where the model depends on unobserved latent variables. The EM iteration alternates between performing an expectation (E) step, which creates a function for the expectation of the log-likelihood evaluated using the current estimate for the parameters, and a maximization (M) step, which computes parameters maximizing the expected log-likelihood found on the E step. These parameter-estimates are then used to determine the distribution of the latent variables in the next E step. It can be used, for example, to estimate a mixture of gaussians, or to solve the multiple linear regression problem. == History == The EM algorithm was explained and given its name in a classic 1977 paper by Arthur Dempster, Nan Laird, and Donald Rubin. They pointed out that the method had been "proposed many times in special circumstances" by earlier authors. One of the earliest is the gene-counting method for estimating allele frequencies by Cedric Smith. Another was proposed by H.O. Hartley in 1958, and Hartley and Hocking in 1977, from which many of the ideas in the Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper originated. Another one by S.K Ng, Thriyambakam Krishnan and G.J McLachlan in 1977. Hartley's ideas can be broadened to any grouped discrete distribution. A very detailed treatment of the EM method for exponential families was published by Rolf Sundberg in his thesis and several papers, following his collaboration with Per Martin-Löf and Anders Martin-Löf. The Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper in 1977 generalized the method and sketched a convergence analysis for a wider class of problems. The Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper established the EM method as an important tool of statistical analysis. See also Meng and van Dyk (1997). The convergence analysis of the Dempster–Laird–Rubin algorithm was flawed and a correct convergence analysis was published by C. F. Jeff Wu in 1983. Wu's proof established the EM method's convergence also outside of the exponential family, as claimed by Dempster–Laird–Rubin. == Introduction == The EM algorithm is used to find (local) maximum likelihood parameters of a statistical model in cases where the equations cannot be solved directly. Typically these models involve latent variables in addition to unknown parameters and known data observations. That is, either missing values exist among the data, or the model can be formulated more simply by assuming the existence of further unobserved data points. For example, a mixture model can be described more simply by assuming that each observed data point has a corresponding unobserved data point, or latent variable, specifying the mixture component to which each data point belongs. Finding a maximum likelihood solution typically requires taking the derivatives of the likelihood function with respect to all the unknown values, the parameters and the latent variables, and simultaneously solving the resulting equations. In statistical models with latent variables, this is usually impossible. Instead, the result is typically a set of interlocking equations in which the solution to the parameters requires the values of the latent variables and vice versa, but substituting one set of equations into the other produces an unsolvable equation. The EM algorithm proceeds from the observation that there is a way to solve these two sets of equations numerically. One can simply pick arbitrary values for one of the two sets of unknowns, use them to estimate the second set, then use these new values to find a better estimate of the first set, and then keep alternating between the two until the resulting values both converge to fixed points. It's not obvious that this will work, but it can be proven in this context. Additionally, it can be proven that the derivative of the likelihood is (arbitrarily close to) zero at that point, which in turn means that the point is either a local maximum or a saddle point. In general, multiple maxima may occur, with no guarantee that the global maximum will be found. Some likelihoods also have singularities in them, i.e., nonsensical maxima. For example, one of the solutions that may be found by EM in a mixture model involves setting one of the components to have zero variance and the mean parameter for the same component to be equal to one of the data points. == Description == === The symbols === Given the statistical model which generates a set X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } of observed data, a set of unobserved latent data or missing values Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , and a vector of unknown parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} , along with a likelihood function L ( θ ; X , Z ) = p ( X , Z ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle L({\boldsymbol {\theta }};\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} )=p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})} , the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the unknown parameters is determined by maximizing the marginal likelihood of the observed data L ( θ ; X ) = p ( X ∣ θ ) = ∫ p ( X , Z ∣ θ ) d Z = ∫ p ( X ∣ Z , θ ) p ( Z ∣ θ ) d Z {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}L({\boldsymbol {\theta }};\mathbf {X} )=p(\mathbf {X} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})&=\int p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})\,d\mathbf {Z} \\&=\int p(\mathbf {X} \mid \mathbf {Z} ,{\boldsymbol {\theta }})p(\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})\,d\mathbf {Z} \end{aligned}}} However, this quantity is often intractable since Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } is unobserved and the distribution of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } is unknown before attaining θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} . === The EM algorithm === The EM algorithm seeks to find the maximum likelihood estimate of the marginal likelihood by iteratively applying these two steps: More succinctly, we can write it as one equation: θ ( t + 1 ) = arg max θ E Z ∼ p ( ⋅ | X , θ ( t ) ) [ log p ( X , Z | θ ) ] {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{(t+1)}=\mathop {\arg \max } _{\boldsymbol {\theta }}\operatorname {E} _{\mathbf {Z} \sim p(\cdot |\mathbf {X} ,{\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{(t)})}\left[\log p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} |{\boldsymbol {\theta }})\right]\,} === Interpretation of the variables === The typical models to which EM is applied use Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } as a latent variable indicating membership in one of a set of groups: The observed data points X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } may be discrete (taking values in a finite or countably infinite set) or continuous (taking values in an uncountably infinite set). Associated with each data point may be a vector of observations. The missing values (aka latent variables) Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are discrete, drawn from a fixed number of values, and with one latent variable per observed unit. The parameters are continuous, and are of two kinds: Parameters that are associated with all data points, and those associated with a specific value of a latent variable (i.e., associated with all data points whose corresponding latent variable has that value). However, it is possible to apply EM to other sorts of models. The motivation is as follows. If the value of the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} is known, usually the value of the latent variables Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } can be found by maximizing the log-likelihood over all possible values of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , either simply by iterating over Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } or through an algorithm such as the Viterbi algorithm for hidden Markov models. Conversely, if we know the value of the latent variables Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , we can find an estimate of the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} fairly easily, typically by simply grouping the observed data points according to the value of the associated latent variable and averaging the values, or some function of the values, of the points in each group. This suggests an iterative algorithm, in the case where both θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} and Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are unknown: First, initialize the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} to some random values. Compute the probability of each possible value of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , given θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} . Then, use the just-computed values of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } to compute a better estimate for the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} . Iterate steps 2 and 3 until convergence. The algorithm as just described monotonically approaches a local minimum of the cost function. == Properties == Although an EM iteration does increase the observed data (i.e., marginal) likelihood function, no guarantee exists that the sequence converges to a maximum likelihood estimator. For multimodal distributions, this means that an EM algorithm may co